Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, in the room of Commander Charles Edward McArthur Donaldson, V.R.D., deceased.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Atomic Energy Authority

Mr. Norwood: asked the Minister of Technology if he will consider the transfer of the peaceful functions of the Atomic Energy Authority to a separate board.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): No, Sir.

Mr. Norwood: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, to some extent, this development will become inevitable owing to the increased complexity both of the peaceful development of nuclear energy and of the military application?

Mr. Cousins: The original Question was not quite related to the comment. The inevitability of this is not certain, of course, but in my view the existing structure of the Authority enables it to carry out its responsibilities for the civil application of atomic energy. As my hon.

Friend knows, I am seeking power, through the Science and Technology Bill, to extend the research functions of the Authority outside atomic energy.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology what review he has made of the proportion of the resources of the Atomic Energy Authority devoted to marine reactors and to power stations, respectively; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Cousins: The Atomic Energy Authority keeps its programme of reactor development under continuous review and keeps me informed about it. At present about one-tenth of the Authority's effort on reactor development is devoted to marine work.

Mr. Digby: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an overdue proportion of the work tends to be concentrated on the Central Electricity Generating Board? Does he agree that this tends to be a bad thing and has undoubtedly led to concentration on graphite moderated reactors, which might not be the best thing? Will he keep a proportion between the work for the Generating Board and reactors for other purposes, so as to keep the balance as level as it can be kept?

Mr. Cousins: Yes, Sir, I certainly will.

Mr. David Price: Now that Lord Hinton has retired from the chairmanship of the Central Electricity Generating Board, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that there is a rather better working relationship between the C.E.G.D. and the A.E.A. on their forward nuclear reactor programme, and in particular will he consider putting a member of the Board of the C.E.G.D. on the Board of the A.E.A.?

Mr. Cousins: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question about that. I do not think that the relationship between the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. is within my province.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in reviewing these projects he bears in mind the fact that the success of the first reactor at Dounreay must be taken advantage of at the earliest possible moment in proceeding with the programme to produce a prototype commercial fast reactor?

Mr. Cousins: Provided that that question is not designed to commit me, I certainly will.

Key Industries (Sponsorship)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Technology what progress his Department has made in its proposed sponsorship of four key industries, announced towards the end of 1964; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in stimulating the development of the automation, electronics, computer and machine tool industries.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in sponsoring four key industries, as announced at the end of 1964.

Mr. Cousins: I dealt with the computer industry in my statement yesterday. My Department has been studying the machine tool industry and I hope to make a statement in due course. We are also studying the problems of the electronics and telecommunications industries and discussing them with the representatives of these industries.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while his statement yesterday seemed balanced and fairly non-Socialistic, we on this side of the House are rather suspicious of his "sponsorship" intentions, particularly since, last May in Tribune, he said that there was a very good case for public ownership going straight away into some of these new, modern industries and that they should not be held up?

Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be responsible for what is written in Tribune any more than I am responsible for what is written anywhere else. If there were a case for public ownership of any section of the industries which I sponsor, I should not hesitate to come out openly with that point of view.

Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Webster: Take your hand out of my pocket.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member who said that should speak up or mind his own business as far as my hands are concerned. [Interruption.] I do not think that hon. Members opposite are competent to start telling hon. Members to take their hands out of their pockets. As far as I know, there is no comment in Standing Orders which refers to hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was called to ask a question. I should be obliged if he would do so.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous stimulus that his statement yesterday created throughout the country and the great response there has been throughout the computer industry? Will he look into the possibility of making a similar statement in order to create such a stimulus for the machine tool industry.

Mr. Cousins: Of course I was aware that there was a great deal of interest in what I was likely to say about computers and I was a little surprised and pleased when some of the journals not normally noted for their support of me endorsed what had been done in the interests of the country. I said that we were studying the machine tool industry, and there are later Questions about this subject.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on this side of the House who for many years have been intimately connected with the application of machine tools welcome the belated interest now shown by hon. Members opposite in my right hon. Friend's appointment? Does he not agree that that interest justifies his appointment?

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts about the machine tool industry which he gave in January, besides being wrong, gave the impression that he was suggesting that the machine tool industry was failing the nation? As the figures published yesterday show that the exports of the machine tool industry have increased by no less than 30 per cent. over last year, will he not agree that the machine tool industry is now showing great enterprise?

Mr. Cousins: There are several questions. I am not aware that the facts which I gave in January were wrong.


They were far from wrong. I was speaking about the sophisticated side of the machine tool industry. The common facts are there if the hon. Gentleman wishes to look for them. There was a great expansion in the import of machine tools at the same time, a fact apparently not known to you—to the hon. Gentleman. I shall be prepared to give these facts in reply to a later Question about the machine tool industry.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was dealing with the electronics industry. Will he bear in mind that eight trade associations are involved and that it is a very complex industry—

Mr. David Griffiths: You are connected with it.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: There was an accusation, Mr. Speaker. I am not connected with any part of the electronics industry and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the accusation.

Mr. Speaker: The accusation was directed at me. I ask hon. Members to help us to get on with Questions.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the various component parts of the electronics industry? Is he aware tint we on this side of the House would like him to consider the matter slowly and thoroughly rather than make a quick appreciation of what is required?

Mr. Cousins: I shall be delighted to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I understood that there were nine and not eight associations. I have already had some preliminary discussions with the new body representing the electronics industry. I am very pleased to hear you say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he would welcome our taking this slowly, which is in contradiction to some of the sentiments expressed in other Questions.

Nuclear Weapons (Research and Development)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Technology what is his policy on the industrial application of those technological advances derived from research into and development of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Cousins: The Atomic Energy Authority has for some years actively promoted the industrial application of technological advances derived from all its research and development, including that in the nuclear weapons field. My object in seeking, under the Science and Technology Bill to extend the research functions of the Authority, is to increase the opportunities for such application.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be pleasure and even relief on this side of the House at his new approach? Will he deal with two matters which arise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] First, as there is no scientific or technological difference between a peaceful atom and a warlike atom, will he get rid of some of the emotional humbug which his party has talked about this subject? Secondly, now that the Labour Party has very wisely accepted the need to rely upon nuclear weapons for the defence of the country, will he use his best offices in his Ministry to assist in making these weapons the most modern and sophisticated kind?

Mr. Cousins: The answer to the second part of the question is that, except in so far as I am a member of the Cabinet, responsibility for the development of weapons is not mine. I shall be prepared to discuss my own views on what ought to be done in that field. On the question, if it was one, about the emotional humbug which has coloured our thinking on this subject, while there may not be any difference between a peaceful atom and a warlike atom, their applications have a substantial difference.

Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure the safety of the Aldermaston marchers?

Mr. Cousins: There is a Question on this subject and I shall be pleased to answer it.

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Technology what action he intends taking to improve the performance of the machine tool industry.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on his policy towards the machine tool industry; and what aid he proposes to give to it through his Department.

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology by what methods he intends to sponsor technological advance in the machine tool industry.

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking, by Government action, to improve the performance of the machine tool industry.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what he is doing to improve the performance of the British machine tool industry.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he has given to the problems of the machine tool industry; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Cousins: My Department is urgently carrying out a study of the machine tool industry and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that the fact that the machine tool industry increased its exports in December by 15 per cent. and in January by 30 per cent. is an outstanding record on which he as Minister should congratulate it?

Mr. Cousins: I shall be seeing representatives of the machine tool industry within the next few days, subject to my engagements here. I shall convey to them the views which we hold on the industry's performance during the last few months. The criticism was that there had been a declining performance over a number of years while the figures for the imports of machine tools rose considerably between 1963 and 1964. In 1963, the import figures were £26·2 million and in 1964 they were £33·2 million. This is a difference with which I am trying to get the machine tool industry to deal.

Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the energy with which my right hon. Friend is tackling this crucial problem. Will he not agree that one of the very important aspects is the way in which the latest types of machine tools are introduced into industry generally? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some financial incentives might be suggested for dealing with this problem?

Mr. Cousins: A whole range of problems affects the introduction of machine

tools into industry and this is a matter which we shall be examining. There are many aspects, including the fact that a similar allowance is paid for bad as for good machine tools.

Mr. Hogg: While we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will be making a statement shortly, will he give us some indication of when "shortly" is likely to be?

Mr. Cousins: As soon as the facts have been ascertained, I shall provide them. I shall remember the suggestion about the electronics industry and I shall make a careful study rather than a predetermined judgment.

Nuclear-powered Submarines and Polaris Missiles

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will visit the United States Navy at Holy Loch to discuss with them the technological benefits from the operation of nuclear-powered submarines and the development of Polaris missiles.

Mr. Cousins: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why he will not go to Holy Loch? Is it true that it is because of his antics with the C.N.D. with his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is sitting beside him, and the Aldermaston marches and all that? Would it be because of his background that he will not go there? Will he tell the House and the country why he has done this political somersault in so short a time?

Mr. David Griffiths: Dirty.

Mr. Cousins: I am looking for the reference to that in the Question. Probably the hon. Member will reveal it sometime. The antics in which it is suggested we indulged have nothing to do with the use of technological benefits from the operation of nuclear-powered submarines and the development of Polaris missiles. I am not proposing to use in industry any underwater factories with the opportunity to fire at people from under the water.

Mr. Marples: Does the Minister realise that out of the Polaris technological advances, many advances have been made which are useful in industry and are being


applied there? I refer particularly to the critical part played by the computer in civil engineering building and also at atomic power stations. Will he not, therefore, use every technological device which Polaris has thrown up?

Mr. Cousins: Certainly, I shall use every device that is thrown up. Like the right hon. Member, I have been doing some visiting, too, and seeing some of the advantages which have come from the advanced techniques, particularly in electronics. This has nothing to do, however, with the question of whether I visit a Polaris submarine base.

Marine Nuclear Propulsion

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the development of a nuclear reactor for marine purposes; if spectral shift is still incorporated in the design; what study he has made of the United States consolidated nuclear steam generator type now being fitted in the German s.s. "Otto Hahn" for the purposes of comparison with the British proposal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the consolidated nuclear steam generator type, constructed in the United States of America and being fitted to s.s. "Otto Hahn", for the purposes of comparison with the British proposal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cousins: On the first part of this Question, I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 23rd February. If the Government decide to proceed with a prototype ship, a choice will be made between the Vulcain design which incorporates the spectral shift method of control and the alternative burnable poison pressurised water reactor. I understand that the organisation building the "Otto Hahn" is designing the reactor for this ship in collaboration with a consortium of German firms which includes the licensee of the United States design to which the hon. Members refer.

Commander Courtney: Will the Minister confirm that the Vulcain spectral shift principle is still under consideration for marine purposes? Is it not a fact

that this part of the late Captain Atkins' criticisms of this reactor is valid? As we shall never get a prototype ship to sea unless we do something, will not the Minister sink his pride and that of the Atomic Energy Authority and buy American?

Mr. Cousins: If you will put down a Question about purchasing American, I will try to answer that one, too. The Question which you have put—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] You will have to accept that I think of you in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] No offence is intended, Mr. Speaker. My experience in the past has been in directing thoughts to people who did not mind. The question of the Vulcain reactor is, of course, still under review, as is the burnable poison design. The question of which is to be used, if one is to be used, is not simply a matter of whether the Vulcain or the American is the right one.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was answering Question No. 28 with No. 6. Did he really mean No. 26, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No. No. 38 was the additional number mentioned by the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it known when the choice between the two systems is likely to be made?

Mr. Cousins: No. There are many considerations, including the question of priorities of our economic resources, too, that have to be considered.

Mr. Hogg: Whilst I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman as one who has recently made bad mistakes in addressing the House in the second person plural, and wishing him the very best of luck in seeking to accustom himself, as I have had to do, may I ask him to realise that this is a matter which has very general interest in all quarters of the House? Will he keep the House informed about the progress of the investigation into this matter as soon as anything definite is known?

Mr. Cousins: I will certainly be glad to do that.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was


told on 22nd December—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was told on 22nd December, to put the Vulcain—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was told on 22nd December, to put the Vulcain in the Belgian experimental reactor BR3, or do I gather from the earlier reply that that idea has been discontinued?

Mr. Cousins: The hon. Member made me comforted to know that the House could shout at him for not knowing how to conduct himself, too. Collaboration on the Vulcain reactor will continue between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Syndicat Vulcain under an agreement which lasts until 1967.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the considerable further developments arising from the Padmore Report, to which there was a reference in one of the right hon. Gentleman's Answers this afternoon, will he consider laying a new White Paper to show what further thought the Government have given to the matter in the light of subsequent experience?

Mr. Cousins: This, I should have thought, was a little premature in the light of the Answers I have given earlier.

Commander Courtney: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made on the Vulcain reactor; and to what degree his Department is co-operating in the design and construction of such a reactor.

Mr. Cousins: Good progress has been made on the joint programme with the Belgians. The experimental operation of a Vulcain-type core in the Belgian BR3 reactor will begin later this year. The A.E.A. and its Belgian associates are responsible for day-to-day management of work under the agreement, which is at present limited to research and development and does not cover the construction of a reactor.

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what degree the Vulcain

has been a failure, and how long it will take to get either the Vulcain or some other type of reactor to sea? Does he think that the date mentioned by the Padmore Report, 1968, can still be reached?

Mr. Cousins: The question whether one gets a ship to sea depends on a lot of other considerations. As to whether the Vulcain is used, perhaps I might point out that there is more than one type of reactor, but a decision has not been taken on an economic basis as to whether this is the type of project that we should initiate first.

Technological Resources

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Technology how he proposes to mobilise the resources of technology into a national plan; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his proposals for mobilising the resources of technology on a national plan.

Mr. Cousins: My proposals are being prepared on the lines indicated in the statement on 26th November by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In working them out I am proceeding in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, who is responsible for preparing the National Economic Plan of which the mobilisation of our technological resources will form a part.

Mr. Morrison: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that technology is the application of rational thought? Would he not, therefore, agree that the success of technology depends upon human attitudes—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless hon. Members wish to deny other hon. Members Answers to their Questions, or the chance of Answers to them, I suggest that we address ourselves to technology and rather less to the need to say "No hands in pockets" as hon. Members get up.

Mr. Morrison: What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that


technology is properly understood throughout the country?

Mr. Cousins: I should have thought that the very creation of the Ministry of Technology was proof of our determination to do this. We are avoiding the vulgar publicity that, apparently, would have been easy, but we are trying to make industry understand, through the use of our own Advisory Council and through approaches to sections of industry, the value of the technological approach.

Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend agree that within the scientific departments that have now come under his wing there are many skilled scientists who would be able to help Government Departments which are less scientifically orientated? May I suggest that the past history of C.L.A.S.P. is a good example of what can be done when scientists co-operate within Departments? Will my right hon. Friend give thought to this idea in the future?

Mr. Cousins: One of the reasons for the study which we are undertaking is to enable as to use the scientific material available to us in the best possible way.

Computer Industry

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology by what methods he intends to sponsor technological advance in the computer industry.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to further technological progress in the computer industry.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to encourage British computer manufacturers.

Mr. Cousins: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement about computers which I made yesterday.

Mr. Price: We all welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday as being helpful, but is he aware that the determining factor for success or failure in the British computer industry, with its heavy development costs, is the quantum of orders for hardware? Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals as

yet to put to the House by which, through possible commercial arrangements with some of the European countries, we can make the British home market larger?

Mr. Cousins: This is the purpose of the total exercise. We are designing our efforts to encourage the creation of a suitable type of computer for the home market, with the possibility of it having export value, too.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that these questions were put down before we had knowledge of his intention to issue a statement, but now that he has published a statement in some detail, and in particular with reference to setting up of a computer tape bank, will he consider investigating the possible use of microfilm techniques to aid what he proposed in his statement so that we can really get down to the job of having a technologically efficient computer industry in this country?

Mr. Cousins: Nothing will be excluded from the review. It is as well for my hon. Friend to recall that we are talking about establishing a national computer programme centre. This is now in the process of preliminary discussions. This is a complicated problem which must have the good will of manufacturers, programmers, and industry before one can make a success of it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday, which I also welcome, may I ask whether we should assume from it that from now on no Government Department will order computers from America? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is said that the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is about to order one?

Mr. Cousins: It would be improper to assume, because of my statement, that no American computers would be ordered. Our purpose will be to create the most efficient British computer industry possible in order to do away with the inevitable fact that in many cases computers have been ordered from America because there has been no suitable British computer available in this country.

Mr. Marples: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what criteria Government Departments, and perhaps local authorities, use when purchasing computers?

Mr. Cousins: It would be a little difficult to make a hypothetical assessment of the criteria which will be used. What was determined in the computer statement yesterday was that there would be a computer advisory unit to which we would ask people to come for guidance, and through which we would give them the benefit of our objective survey and encourage them to use British computers if this was a feasible proposition. But at the same time it must be recognised that we shall be talking to many bodies which have their own authorities. We can give them advice, but that is all, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are suggesting that we should take more than advisory powers.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider how to meet the unfair competition, particularly in the supply of computers to universities, where the terms offered by firms competing with British computer firms are often of a non-commercial kind?

Mr. Cousins: This is one of the most complicated aspects of the approach to the universities. We have cases—and they must be known to all hon. Members—of computers offered almost at give-away prices to encourage the use of them. We have said openly from our Department that we think that if people are trained on American computers it tends to make them believe that they are the only ones in existence. There are good American computers. We want good British computers so that the universities can take these instead.

Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Aldermaston

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to pay a personal visit to the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Aldermaston; whether he is satisfied with the progress of research at that establishment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cousins: I look forward to visiting as many as possible of the Atomic

Energy Authority's establishments, including Aldermaston, as opportunity offers. Research at Aldermaston is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Commander Courtney: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to make his next journey to Aldermaston on foot?

Mr. Mendelson: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want him to go in a gunboat?

Commander Courtney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great satisfaction—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear whether the question is in order if hon. Members in disorder make so much noise that I cannot hear. Do let us get on with Questions.

Commander Courtney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great satisfaction that will be felt throughout the country over the fact that he remains in his present position, thus showing that he is completely behind the Government in the development of nuclear weapons?

Mr. Cousins: There are two parts to that supplementary question. First, if I go on foot I shall probably be admitted. I would not think of going on Blue Streak. I have reason to believe that at least on this side of the House there is a great deal of satisfaction at my filling the post of Minister of Technology.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we are very glad that this time when he goes he will get in, and that he will be able to teach them a lot about politics, just as he can teach the Tories about technology?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since Blue Streak is now playing an important part in European and Commonwealth enterprises, perhaps we can arrange an experiment involving the right hon. Gentleman and Blue Streak in the direction of Aldermaston—or somewhere else.

Scientists and Technologists

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Technology what measures he is taking to encourage scientists and technologists to remain in British industry.

Mr. Cousins: I believe that the formation of a Ministry of Technology with the wide range of responsibilities described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26th November, 1964, will in itself be an encouragement to technologists and scientists. Further, we are initiating studies into the whole question of the status of engineers, and are working in close consultation with the Department of Education and Science on the supply of scientists.

Mr. Gilmour: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that almost everything that this Government have done, from his own appointment and the increase in taxation to the havoc created in the aircraft industry, is calculated to drive these talented people abroad?

Mr. Cousins: I certainly do not accept the hon. Member's opinion about that.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister say whether there have been any recent figures concerning the emigration of technologists to the United States and elsewhere in comparison with the figures for about a year ago?

Mr. Cousins: I have no recent figures. Some of the last figures available to D.S.I.R. showed a tendency for some of them to be coming back.

Mr. Allason: Is the Minister aware that his reported statement that his new job was to bring science into industry caused considerable offence to many firms which have employed scientists for years?

Mr. Cousins: I am not aware of that. It is not a statement of fact. I did not make that comment—and industry has welcomed me much more than many other people have.

Electronics Industry

Captain Orr: asked the Minister of Technology how much was spent during the last full year on Government development contracts in the electronics industry; how much of this sum was spent with wholly owned foreign companies and partly-owned foreign companies, respectfully; what were the countries involved in the ownership, and what amount of money involved relates

to each foreign country concerned; and what information he has as to the amount being spent by each country concerned on development contracts with British firms.

Mr. Cousins: So far as my own Department is concerned, the amount provided in the financial year 1964–65 for development contracts placed with the electronics industry by those parts of D.S.I.R. which we are taking over, amounts to about £140,000, two-thirds of which is placed with wholly British-owned companies.

Captain Orr: Is the Minister aware that we are grateful to him for that information? Will he look carefully at the whole situation? May it not be very bad business to subsidise, in effect, research and development for foreign-owned companies whose parent arrangements prevent their competing in exports and thereby adding to British exports? Would it not be a good thing to see whether it is possible to arrange a sort of pound-for-pound reciprocity basis for dealing with this kind of thing?

Mr. Cousins: It is not the best of business propositions to spend money on research and development and then to find oneself limited in the matter of exports by the parentage of the company concerned, but in many instances it is difficult to determine the exact parentage of a company, because of cross-financing. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is a British company. But we will certainly try, wherever possible, through the National Research Development Corporation, to ensure reciprocity for this kind of arrangement.

Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the proportion of two-thirds referred to in his Answer to be substantially altered in any way as a result of his policy statement of yesterday?

Mr. Cousins: It would not be possible to define this, because it is extremely difficult to know what one means by a British firm. The people involved in the electronics industry are particularly aware how difficult it is to define what is a British firm, having regard to the European financing of two of the major companies.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy with regard to Ministers retaining positions as officers in trade unions.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given as to the propriety of Ministers of the Crown holding office, even though unpaid, in organisations of known political commitments.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to require all Members appointed to positions in the Government to resign all appointments, even if unpaid, which may appear to conflict with their Ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Gower: asked the Prime Minister in what circumstances, and under what conditions, a person assuming office as a Minister may retain a position as an officer in a trade union.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The directions given to Ministers on these and similar matters are the same as those which were circulated in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 28th January, 1960. The basic principle is that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.

Mr. Gilmour: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this matter he is acting clean contrary to the spirit of those directions? Is it not quite clear that in peace time the same rule of resignation should apply to trade union officers as applies to directors, and which applied under the first Labour Government? While complimenting the Minister of Technology on his prudence in retaining his present trade union job so that he can return to it, quite shortly, is it not high time that the Prime Minister made his constitutional position legitimate?

The Prime Minister: To the extent that there was a serious point in that supplementary question, the position being followed today is exactly that which was followed by Lord Attlee's Government.

Mr. Kershaw: Is it not clear that there is likely to be a conflict of loyalty between a member of the Cabinet and the largest trade union in the country? Is it not entirely against the spirit of the agreement that a member of the Cabinet should retain that sort of job? Why did not he resign, like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) when he took a job?

The Prime Minister: It is the duty of the Prime Minister to see whether any conflict arises. If any did I would not hesitate to act. But it is clear to the House that everything that is being done is above board and is known to the public. This is a very different thing from a Government who did not even say what pressures they were subject to, financially and otherwise.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: In deciding whether the rules of prudence and the precedents point towards resignation or the retention of office with leave of absence, unpaid, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that his predecessor, Mr. MacDonald, stated that the rules of directorships should apply to the trade union organisation and offices and that, further, in the last Labour Government when a period came when the Labour Cabinet had to face some criticism of its decision about the proclamation of the emergency in 1948 and 1949, and the manning of essential industries with Service men in 1950, by that time Mr. Ernest Bevin had ceased to hold trade union office, because he resigned in 1946?

The Prime Minister: The rule that I quoted today is exactly as stated by Lord Attlee, Sir Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister—the very same words—and, indeed, by Mr. Butler—now Lord Butler—when Leader of the House. These rules are being followed. It should be recognised that there are always moments when there may be a conflict of interest, however remote. Ministers of the last Government and of the present one have both resigned from bodies such as the National Institute for Economic Research when there was even the possibility that since a Government grant might be involved Ministers might be under pressure. Every case must be judged on its merits, and in case of difficulty or doubt the Prime Minister must decide.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Prime Minister agree that as the rule has affected company directors, in particular, it has meant that directors of public companies, in almost every instance, have resigned their directorships? As the rule has, on the whole, been beneficial, would it not be equally beneficial for it to apply similarly to offices of the kind referred to in this Question?

The Prime Minister: Where there was any question of an officer having executive functions, as a director has executive functions, there would be a conflict of that kind, but where there is no exercise of those functions the same consideration does not apply.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the Prime Minister that questions must be looked at each one on its own merits. In the case of the right hon. Gentleman, surely his reason for retaining office must be either to give or receive advice. In either case I say that there must be a conflict of interest and may I ask whether the Prime Minister will look again at the desirability of his right hon. Friend retaining this office?

The Prime Minister: I have been into this question very fully. I am not sure that it lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to give us this advice. He was for many years the colleague of a Minister who admitted in this House, after having been a Minister for several years, to still holding a controlling interest in a very important Government contracting firm.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grimond.

Mr. Grimond: rose—

Mr. Marples: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will come back to the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). I have called the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Grimond: Is not it the case that it has not been unknown for people to give up directorships to take office and then return to those identical directorships in a manner which does seem to suppose that they have retained some possible residual interest? May I ask whether there is any difference between that and what is being done with Ministers of the present Government? May I also say to the Prime Minister

that I feel there is a case for looking at the whole matter again? I fully accept that it has been dealt with according to precedent, but lately the salaries both of Ministers and Members of this House have been increased, partly to enable them to discharge their political duties without feeling that they may suffer financial embarrassment. Therefore, I believe that there is a case for looking at the whole matter again, without casting any aspersions on the conduct of the present Minister.

The Prime Minister: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot have understood both the actual wording of the Question and the present position if he thought that there was any question of payment arising. I agree that if there were any payments it would very much change the situation. The particular case which I think the right hon. Gentleman had in mind involved no payment whatsoever. On the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think the position must be that, as the Leader of the Opposition said, every case does raise difficulties and they have to be looked at individually. In the case I mentioned a few moments ago in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, when the Minister concerned felt there was a possible conflict of interest of course he resigned, after being for seven years a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second thoughts"]—with a controlling interest in a contracting firm. The right hon. Gentleman must have felt that did not involve any conflict. In the case of my right hon. Friend we must take the decision whether any conflict arises, and I am satisfied that it does not.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for sending me a letter at ten minutes past three, saying that he might use my case in answering supplementary questions. I made a statement in the House of Commons on 28th January, 1960. At the end of that statement the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said
This was a personal statement, which we accept in the spirit in which it has been made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 381.]
When the firm which I started, and which still bears my name, had a contract in connection with the Hammersmith Flyover I was Minister of Transport, and although that contract was not


with the Ministry of Transport I felt I had to resign—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not quite certain what is happening. I called the right hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question, in view of what had happened. I am afraid that we are not doing very well with Questions to the Prime Minister. If it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to make a personal statement about something, procedures have to be gone through. It cannot be done on an invitation to ask a question.

Mr. Marples: Is the Prime Minister aware that in that statement I said I hoped that the sale would be completed very soon, and it was, and then I should have no financial interest in the company—and I have not gone back since?

The Prime Minister: This statement I know perfectly well. I refreshed my memory about it when I saw these Questions on the Order Paper. The point I was trying to make—I think it a perfectly fair point and I did not even name the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the point is a perfectly fair one. Hon. Gentleman opposite are suggesting that my right hon. Friend, by having an unpaid appointment, has a conflict of interest. I am suggesting that if a Minister in the last Government could have been there for seven years with an admitted controlling interest before he resigned that interest, there was a question of a conflict of interest, with which the Leader of the Opposition did not seem to be concerned. I have explained the position today and no conflict of interest arises.

Mr. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature—[Interruption.]—of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall—[Interruption.]—raise the matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: I assume from his posture that the hon. Gentleman was giving notice.

10, DOWNING STREET (OFFICIAL LUNCHES)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Prime Minister how many official lunches he has given at 10, Downing

Street, for the furtherance of Government business, since he took office.

The Prime Minister: Twelve, Sir.

Mr. Morrison: Does not the Prime Minister consider his reply somewhat surprising? Does not he recall the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology in another place on 28th January? In view of that speech does not he realise how much time he must have wasted and how inefficient he must have been? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of his business lunches is entirely paid by the taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: The supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman was so predictable that I have a full list of everything that my noble Friend said in another place on that occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it seriously, I can tell him the names of the people for whom the 12 lunches were held. They were the Prime Ministers of Ceylon, Trinidad, Ireland, Denmark, India, Australia and New Zealand, the President of Burma, the President of Zambia, the King of Jordan and the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be so indignant with itself soon because it has not got on with Questions to the Prime Minister.

PRIVATE INDUSTRY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what further approaches he intends to make to the representatives of private industry to secure their cooperation in the solution of the nation's difficulties.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what response there has been to date to the approaches he has made to the representatives of private industry to secure their co-operation in the solution of the nation's difficulties.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Prime Minister what further approaches he plans to make to the representatives of private industry to secure their help in solving national difficulties.

Mr. Walden: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he is having with the leaders of private industry to seek their co-operation in solving the national economic problems.

The Prime Minister: My colleagues and I intend to continue the policies which have already secured notable co-operation from representatives of private industry, for example, in the reconstruction of the National Economic Development Council, the formation of Economic Development Committees and of Economic Planning Councils.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-operation he has had up to now from private industry in the solution of our national difficulties? Does not he think it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition has not publicly repudiated the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in this regard—views which come very near to sedition?

The Prime Minister: I think that, so far as consultation and co-operation with industry is concerned, we have certainly every reason to feel satisfied with the progress made, though, as I have indicated elsewhere, I think we need—all of us—now to show more co-operation on both sides of industry to achieve the same objectives in connection with productivity and exports. So far as his reference to the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I must say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the Leader of the Opposition treats the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with the same scorn as I do.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I tell the Prime Minister that I do not accept that, but may I say to him that it applies to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

The Prime Minister: I was trying to get the right hon. Gentleman off the hook, but if he does not accept—I was trying to establish some bipartisanship on his part, but if he does not respond to it, perhaps he will now tell us whether he does agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I have the greatest difficulty in getting through Questions to Ministers. I should be grateful if

Ministers would not put Questions to other people.

Mr. Marten: While acknowledging that Ministers opposite need all the help and advice which they can get from public-spirited members of the private sector, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that these gentlemen are paid up to £12,000 a year, with pension allowance on top of that?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure which gentlemen the hon. Member is referring to—

Mr. Marten: The officers who are being recruited to Government service.

The Prime Minister: I was really dealing with Question No. 3. I think that the hon. Member's supplementary question is rather off-beat, in relation to a different question.

Mr. Jackson: Would not the Prime Minister consider, perhaps along the same lines as the exports awards scheme, devising some scheme by which factories, managers and workers doing particularly well in regard to productivity could secure some form of award? Secondly, would the Prime Minister consider some plan for those directors who have given good service to the country for perhaps 15 years receiving some small present like silver? Would the Prime Minister consider perhaps asking the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to decide whether the words, "With Gratitude" should be put on?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the new system of awards to industry applies not only to export performance but to achievements in technology and innovation.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that awards such as "Hero of the Export Drive" would not have such a great appeal to businessmen as the profit motive itself? Would he also bear in mind that perhaps the biggest enemy of the export drive is too soft a home market?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that the Committee which is making proposals under the awards scheme was likely to come out with that particular title. I would be very surprised if it did. With regard to the profit motive, I think that the whole House knows that both the


previous Government and we ourselves have devoted a good deal of effort to attempts to find viable export incentives of a financial kind, but we are hemmed in, as they were, by our international obligations and, to a large extent, by our national interests in this matter. Therefore, it has not been possible to find very much in that direction, but we shall go on looking and seeing what we can find. On the question of the home market, this has been the subject of great theological argument for very many years to my knowledge, but, of course, one of the problems here is that if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the only way to get exports is to have deflation and under-capacity working in this country, I believe that that would be completely contrary to the interests of the nation.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law of Scotland in relation to admissions and agreements in respect of evidence in trials on indictment, and for purposes connected therewith; presented by Mr. Wylie; supported by Mr. Michael Noble and Mr. Forbes Hendry; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th March, 1965, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

IMMIGRATION

3.30 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the fixing of periodic and precise limits on immigration into the United Kingdom (until local authorities have dealt with the urgent problems arising from previous immigration); to stop the widespread avoidance of existing regulations; to provide for the repatriation of immigrants who enter the United Kingdom illegally; to make further provision regarding deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment; to provide for assisted passages for immigrants who wish to return to their own country; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
I realise the deep and sincere feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this very difficult, complicated and important issue. I shall state my case with the greatest moderation and hope that hon. Members will give me a fair hearing.
I would like to make a few brief points. First, I think that we are all agreed that the immigrants who are already in this country are entitled to the full protection of the law, and that anyone who stirs up racial hatred should be punished to the uttermost of the law. Secondly, I believe that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would agree that everything possible should be done to integrate into our society the immigrants who are already here, and to help them to adjust themselves to our way of life. Thirdly, the more immigrants we admit, the greater will be the difficulty of integrating them. The fewer we admit, the easier the problem of absorbing them.
With these preliminary remarks, I would say this to hon. Members. My Bill would provide for a definite small quota, greater health checks, a clean criminal record, a working knowledge of the English language, the repatriation of immigrants found guilty of crimes in this country—with the exemption raised from five to 15 years—the prevention of illegal entrance to the United Kingdom and the provision of assisted passages for immigrants who want to return to their native country. I should like to make it clear that all genuine students and businessmen would be exempted, provided that, when they have finished their


training, they go back to their own countries.
Britain is already the most densely populated country in the Commonwealth and, I think hon. Members on both sides will agree, cannot accommodate unlimited numbers of immigrants. The density of population per sq. mile in England and Wales is 790; in India, it is 344; in Pakistan, 257; and in Ghana, 53.

Mr. Archie Manuel: What about taking Scotland into account?

Sir C. Osborne: The very affluence of this country naturally attracts immigrants who are living in poverty overseas. For example, Pakistan's annual income per capita is £19 and in India it is £24. In the United Kingdom it is £405. Naturally, our wealth attracts them to come from their poverty. But, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept the 15 million per annum population increase from these two countries alone, let alone absorb the increase in population throughout the Commonwealth.
I think that I will carry hon. Members opposite with me in saying that the great shortage of housing in this country, created by our own population explosion which is necessitating the building of newer and fresher cities, makes further restriction of immigration vital. Those who object to my proposals often say to me that the immigrant labour is necessary in this country to do the menial and disagreeable jobs which we will not do for ourselves.
That is treating the immigrants as second-class citizens, which I reject. Futhermore, if their children in turn refuse to do these jobs for us, are we to keep bringing in men for ever to do the jobs which we will not do for ourselves?
The Minister of Labour tacitly supports my plea, for this reason. He has in his office at present about 300,000 applications for C vouchers and, as I understand, he has not issued one for a very long time; and I understand that he has no intention of issuing any for a long time to come.
Hon. Members opposite must surely support my plea because during the passage in 1961 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill through the House they voted no fewer than 46 times against the

Bill. That was at a time when 135,000 immigrants a year were coming into this country. They voted that they would repeal the Act. But subsequently they have been forced by circumstances silently to reimpose it, and not one has protested.
The Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see here, must tacitly support my plea for two reasons. One is that he has publicly admitted that there is widespread evasion, and has determined to end that evasion. Secondly, he is on record as saying that the Government are firmly convinced that an effective control is indispensable. The Home Secretary said, "That policy we accept, and we have always accepted it". He must, therefore, give me his support in what I am seeking.
I am convinced from the hundreds of thousands of letters which I get from all over the country, many of them from Labour supporters. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I said hundreds and thousands of letters. If I did not say that, it is what I meant to say. I am convinced by these letters that the majority of the British people, irrespective of party, support my plea, not because they hate other races but because they love their own country and they want to leave the heritage to their children as they found it.
I beg hon. Members to give me permission to introduce the Bill, because the subject is so serious that it merits further and longer discussion.

3.43 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In begging your leave, Mr. Speaker, to oppose the Bill, may I begin by saying that I found the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) a little confusing. He said that at present there were 300,000 applicants for C vouchers and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would not grant them. It therefore seemed strange to me that the hon. Member's Bill should be required at all. Surely, if this sort of problem is to be dealt with effectively, it cannot be dealt with effectively by a Bill of the kind that he has outlined.
Let me look a little more closely at the terms of the proposed Bill. It suggests fixing periodically precise limits on immigration into the United Kingdom.


As he and hon. Members on both sides of the House know, that is already within the power of the Government; they can fix the number of vouchers. The hon. Gentleman must, therefore, mean that the Government should now move to restrict the right of residents in this country to return to this country and also to restrict even more closely than at present the right of dependent children and of legal spouses to join people working in this country.
I am speaking for many on this side of the House when I say that an attempt to draw a line between children and their parents, between husband and wife, would, I believe, be quite unacceptable to all liberal-minded hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member suggests that there is widespread avoidance of the existing legislation, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, speaking in the House on 4th February, indicated a very wide range of measures to deal with the illegal avoidance of existing legislation.
The hon. Member suggests that there should be further penalties for illegal entry into this country, but, as he must be aware, anyone who makes a false statement to an immigration officer, anyone who uses a false passport or other document or anyone who fails to obey the conditions imposed on his entry into this country is subject to imprisonment and, therefore, to deportation.
The hon. Member suggests that the existing provisions for deportation should be extended. I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by this, unless he means that they should be extended to those who have been residents in this country and accepted as such for more than five years. The position is that if someone lives in this country for five years he can qualify as a citizen of this country. Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should hold an axe over those citizens who were born elsewhere than in this country for the whole of their lives, and that in some sense of the word they are not citizens as fully as are the rest of us? If so, I believe that most hon. Members on both sides of the House would find this an unacceptable principle.
Finally, the hon. Member suggests the provision of assisted passages for those immigrants wishing to return to their own country. There may be a case for this, but already provision exists in the sense that their own Governments, and in certain cases of hardship the National Assistance Board, can provide for such financial assistance.
I have dealt, only briefly, with the terms of the proposed Bill, but I want to say two more things. One is that the great weakness of the Bill is that it would be entirely negative. If we have learned anything in the last few years it surely is that no social problem can ever be dealt with by a combination of restriction and repression.
I speak for many hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we should very much welcome an early statement by the Government, the only body which can effectively deal with the problem, that they are considering measures to integrate our existing immigrant community much more fully into the British community by such measures as greater control over the overcrowding of houses and over bad landlords of all races, by greater attempts to educate immigrants in the English language, by adult literacy classes, and by full attention to fair employment practices and the like. This, surely, is what is required, side by side with the additional security over obedience of the law which my right hon. and learned Friend laid down on 4th February.
It seems to me perfectly fair for this House to discuss reasonably and intelligently the actual numbers of immigrants we can afford. That is a legitimate subject for debate. But what is not a legitimate subject for debate is anything which might lead to distinguishing between our citizens, to treating one group differently from another group, to treating one group as first-class and another group as second-class.
I commend to hon. Members opposite, in particular, a saying made in a different situation by one of their own distinguished members. I refer to Edmund Burke, when he said of the American revolutionaries:
Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire.


Today, we speak not about an Empire, but about a Commonwealth. But I commend those words to hon. Members on both sides of the House—"deny them … participation of freedom …"

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 261.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Ailason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godher, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Goodhart, Philip
Page, R.Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, SirFrank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant, Anthony
Peel, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
price, David (Eastlcigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Pym, Francis


Berry, Hn.Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Hobson Brown, Sir William


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, MichaelClark
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullus, Sir Eric
lrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C.
Speir, Sir Rupert


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerthaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col .Sir Malcolm


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kimball, Marcus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Lambton, Viscount
Talbot, John E.


Cordle, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Crawley, Aidan
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,8.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Ward, Dame Irene


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maitland, Sir John
Webster, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mathew, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Doughty, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Eden, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fell, Anthony
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'ffrord &amp; Stone)
Murton, Oscar
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nicholis, Sir Harmar
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sir John Barlow and




Sir Cyril Osborne.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(LeicsS.W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James


Alldritt, W. H.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Armstrong, Ernest
Berkeley, Humphry
Brown, Hugh D.(Glasgow, Provan)


Atkinson, Norman
Bessell, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Binns, John
Buchanan, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Barnett, Joel
Black burn, F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Baxter, William
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Beaney, Alan
Boston, T. G.
Carmichael, Neil




Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam (Dunfarmline)
Parker, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin
Pentland, Norman


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, Ernest G.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Prentice, R. E.


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, 8.)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, 8.)
Rankin, John


Darling, George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Redhead, Edward


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, lvor


Davies, 8. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dell, Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Drlberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
St.John-Stevas, Norman


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short,Rt. Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


English, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Mrs.Renee (W'hampton.N.E.


Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Ensor, David
McBride, Nell
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McCann, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Silverman Sydney (Nelson)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
MacDermot, Nlall
Skeffington, Arthur


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Mrs.Harrietc (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Mcinnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Rose &amp; Crom'ty)
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, George Y.(C'ness &amp; S'land)
Snow, Julian


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackie, John(Enfleld, E.)
Solomons, Henry


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
stones,William


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Symonds, J. B.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mapp, Charies
Taverne, Dick


Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Grey, Charles
Maxwell, Robert
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Wil l(M'chester Exchange)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Grimond, Ht. Hn. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T.W.


Hale, Leslie
Milnr, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, william
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Monslow, Walter
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Warhey, William


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mulley, Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Watkins, Tudor


Hayman, F. H.
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs, Eirene


Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilkins, W. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swanea, W.)


Higgins, Terence L.
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Mrs.Shirley (Hitchin)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oakes, Gordon
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Ogden, Eris
Wilson, William(Coventry, S.)


Holman, Percy
O'Malley, Brian
Winterbottom, R. E.


Homer, John
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Houghton, Rt .Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Howie, W.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hoy, James
Palmer, Arthur



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Thorpe and Mr.Hattersley.


Hunt, John (Bromley)

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, earlier on a point of order of which I gave you notice concerning the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday when I asked a supplementary question about the supply of arms by the Government to Saudi Arabia. I spoke too fast for the Official Reporters to hear what I said.
I am reported as having mentioned hostilities in Bahrein and over the Israel border. In point of fact, I mentioned the Persian claim to Bahrein and the Jordan waters. I should be grateful if the matter could be cleared up in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. A correction will be made.

FIREARMS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 11th February I made a statement in the House about firearms legislation and I then said that I was fully conscious of the urgency of bringing in a Bill. I said in my statement that the object of the Government's proposals was to strike at the criminal and the potential criminal, the hooligan, while limiting as much as possible the restrictions placed on the law-abiding citizen and the burden placed on the police. This has been our guiding principle in drafting the Bill, which carries into effect the conclusions which I outlined in my previous statement.
Before describing the Bill, I should like to say something about the background of events which led to the Government's decision to take action. I think that the country as a whole was greatly concerned in December last when it seemed for a short time, at any rate, that each day brought its fresh quota of incidents, especially in London, in which firearms were used, sometimes for the purposes of the commission of a crime, sometimes, as it seemed, almost casually and almost without any specific purpose in view. The outbreak was dealt with speedily and effectively by the police, but it served only to throw into relief an apparent trend about which all must feel serious anxiety.
I have previously given figures which show that in the Metropolitan Police District there was a rise in the number of indictable offences in which firearms were used. During the years 1961 to 1963 the numbers had declined slightly from 127 to 118 and then to 103, but they rose again in 1964 to 172. The returns which I have now received from chief officers of police show that there has been a less marked but, nevertheless, noticeable increase in the comparable figures for the rest of England and Wales. There has been an increase in the number of indictable offences in which firearms were used in the cities and counties outside London from 425 in 1961 to 559 in 1964.
If one takes together the December outbreak and the overall increases for the year, it becomes clear that the habit of carrying firearms has been increasing amongst both youthful hooligans and the more serious professional criminals, particularly among the younger hooligan types, some of whom seem to be roaming the streets with loaded firearms prepared to damage property and to shoot and, perhaps, maim people almost out of bravado. The Government are determined that any such tendencies shall be dealt with severely.
We intend to do this in three ways. First, we propose to give the courts powers to deal drastically with people who use firearms and flout the control and, by creating an effective deterrent, make the game just not worth the candle. I have no doubt that we can rely on the courts to use these powers in appropriate cases. To ensure that the penalties which the court may inflict are heavy enough the Bill increases the penalties provided under the Firearms Act, 1937, and also creates two new offences where we think a gap exists in the law.
The second line of attack is to enable the police to catch these people before they have used their weapons. Any person actually committing a serious offence with a firearm will already be dealt with severely under the existing provisions of the Firearms Act, 1937, but more would be achieved if the police could prevent these crimes from being committed. The Bill therefore provides additional powers for the police to enable them to take preventive action. The deterrent effect of the new offences and increased sentences added to the preventive action of the police in the streets may well make criminals of all sorts think twice before taking firearms out with them.
Finally, we have considered how we might reduce the supply of dangerous weapons to people who might misuse them. One suggestion which has been widely canvassed is the extension of the firearms certificate procedure to cover shotguns. I gave very careful consideration to this before I made my statement and I have considered it again since. But my conclusion remains the same, namely, that the burden which certification would put on the police and the

users would not be justified by the results.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered whether sawn-off shotguns—that is, those with a shortened barrel—should be totally prohibited?

Sir F. Soskice: The 1937 Act already deals with sawn-off shotguns. Sawn-off shotguns come within a number of provisions in the Bill.
As I was saying, the burden which certification would put on the police and the users would not be justified by results. I was going on to give the total number of shotguns in this country.
The total number is not known of those held by the public, but estimates have been given, and they vary between 500,000 and 1 million. The issue of a firearm certificate involves careful scrutiny by the police of the reasons given by the person asking for the certificate for his having a firearm and it involves the making of inquiries. If one bears in mind the vast number of shotguns in use by perfectly respectable people for legitimate purposes—and they would have to be given certificates—the conclusion is, I think, quite inevitable that the police would waste a great amount of time in making inquiries about perfectly responsible members of the public. The consequent diversion of police effort would be enormous and might, indeed, be reflected in a reduced ability to deal with crime.
The price would be acceptable if, nevertheless, we felt sure that it would significantly reduce the availability of firearms to criminals. But so many certificates would have to be issued to legitimate users that, in view of the very considerable numbers involved, no really significant result would be produced. But we are certainly not ignoring the fact that shotguns are used increasingly for criminal purposes.
The figures show that shotguns were used in connection with 107 of the 552 indictable offences known to the police in 1961 in which firearms were used, and in 215 of the 731 comparable offences in 1964. Several provisions of the Bill are intended to check this use of shotguns in connection with crime, but instead of dissipating police effort over the very wide field of certification of shotguns we propose to bring home forcibly to the


criminal or potential criminal that it will not pay to use shotguns, or even to contemplate their use. We intend to enable the police to concentrate their efforts effectively rather than to dissipate them—

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman break down those figures further between the shotgun in the normal sense of the word—that is, with a stock—and the smooth-bore pistol with a barrel in excess of 20 ins. which is, therefore, a perfectly legal weapon under the existing law?

Sir F. Soskice: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures without notice, but I shall try to let him have them later. I am not sure that a break-up is available between the two—I rather doubt it— but I shall do my best to get it.
When I go through the various Clauses, I shall draw attention to several provisions that have been drafted with this object in view. In practice, the firearms used by criminal elements are, in the main, stolen or illegally imported, and we have considered how we might make more difficult the acquisition of firearms by theft. Firearms handled by individuals in approved clubs under the existing firearms certificate procedure are, as a matter of standard practice, required to be kept in a secure place when not actually in use. This is a standard condition in all firearm certificates, laid down by the Firearms Rules, 1937. These rules also require conditions to be attached requiring an owner to report all losses and thefts immediately, as well as changes of address.
We do not think that this procedure requires amendment at this stage, although as a preliminary to bringing the Measure into effect when it is on the Statute Book—as I hope it will be very quickly—I propose to discuss with chief officers of police the whole question of the enforcement procedure; and to consider with them whether anything further needs to be done by way of co-ordination.
The criminal wishing to obtain a firearm by theft will prefer to know that where he intends to steal it he will find the type of weapon he would like to have. The obvious target for him is in the premises of a dealer in firearms. Under the 1937 Act, all dealers in firearms, other than those dealing solely in shotguns and air weapons, have to register

with the police. The police may refuse to register if, amongst other things, they are satisfied the applicant cannot be permitted to carry on business as a firearms dealer without danger to the public safety. If registration is refused the dealer has the right of appeal to quarter sessions. Like so many blanket powers, this is only appropriate for the bad case. What the police cannot do at the moment, as they can in connection with a firearms certificate, is to attach conditions to the registration of persons wishing to carry on business as dealers in firearms.
Most dealers are responsible and careful businessmen, and follow the advice of the Gun Trade Association. The Association only recently, after consultation with the Commissioner of Police, issued excellent advice to its members on the sort of precautions they should take to secure their premises and their stock, and I gladly acknowledge the co-operation and public spirit that it has shown in this matter. It needs, however, only one or two slightly less conscientious or less careful dealers for relatively substantially numbers of weapons to be liable to be stolen and become available to criminals.
The Bill therefore provides that upon registration the police shall be able to impose conditions, and upon non-compliance with these conditions to revoke registration. Such conditions could include conditions requiring steps to be taken to ensure as far as possible that firearms are securely kept by the dealer. I shall also discuss with chief officers of police the sort of conditions to be attached when the Bill is further on its way. Dealers will have power to appeal to quarter sessions against conditions imposed and any revocation of registration that may take place. For the first time, we shall bring within the dealers registration system persons who deal only in shotguns, who are at present outside it. This will make the system comprehend all lethal firearms.
As I said in my recent statement, I shall request chief officers of police to co-operate in having another amnesty before the regulations relating to increased penalties come into force, so as to enable people who have firearms without certificate—and who, under the Bill, will become liable to long terms of imprisonment—to hand them in without penalty.
Having said that by way of introduction, I propose now to go shortly through the provisions of the Bill—

Mr. W. F. Deedes: It is not in the Bill, but may I ask what happens to the weapons after they have been handed in? Are they sold back to firearms dealers, or are they destroyed?

Sir F. Soskice: That would have to be a matter for consideration. A number would be destroyed. They certainly would not be disposed of in any way that human prescience could foresee might result in their getting into the hands of those whom we would not wish to possess them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes it an offence punishable on indictment with 10 years' imprisonment for a person to have a firearm with him while attempting to commit an indictable offence. Incidentally, this Clause will include air weapons and also, of course, shotguns. The police will have to show that the person concerned intended to commit an indictable offence as well as that he had a firearm with him. It is, I know, often not easy for the prosecution to prove the existence of such an intent, but I believe that cases will certainly arise in which the circumstances point conclusively to the existence of such an intent, and as the offence in such cases is likely to be one of the more serious types of offence, such as robbery or burglary, we thought it right and appropriate to create such an offence and to attach to it what is, after all, a very severe penalty, indeed, which will, we hope, act as an effective deterrent.
As the law stands, Section 23 of the Firearms Act, 1937, provides that a person committing one of a large number of serious crimes while armed or who is armed when arrested may receive seven years' imprisonment in addition to the sentence for which he is liable for the basic crime committed. The law does not, however, in general provide for the case where a crime has not yet been committed but where it is quite clear that there is an intention on the part of the armed criminal to commit an offence.
As I have already said, this is essentially a preventive Bill, and this gap in

the 1937 Act ought to be filled. Cases may come to light as the result of the powers which, as I shall indicate in a moment, Clause 3 confers on the police to stop and search vehicles and to arrest without warrant. The search of a vehicle may, for example, produce conclusive exidence of the intention of the occupants to break and enter a building, perhaps a few miles further down the road; but, since no crime would have been committed, they would not be liable to the extra seven years under the existing provisions of Section 23 of the 1937 Act. This gap will exist no longer.
Clause 2 makes it an offence, punishable on summary conviction with six months' imprisonment or a fine of £200, or both, or on indictment with five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both, for a person to have with him in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse a loaded shotgun or any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon, whether loaded or not, together with the appropriate ammunition. It is intended to deal with the case of a criminal or potential criminal going about in a public place with firearms and ammunition to the danger of the public.
Clause 2 really deals with two categories of case. First, there is the loaded firearm. This is the most extreme case, where prima facie it is unreasonable to be carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. There may certainly be many occasions, say in the countryside, when it would be entirely reasonable for somebody to be carrying a loaded shotgun; but, if he is doing so, he will have no difficulty in showing that he has a satisfactory reason for so doing. Accordingly, this first category covers any loaded firearm other than an air weapon. The second category of case covers any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon which is carried but which is not actually loaded, although the ammunition is being carried as well.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the case of the type of shotgun known as a pump-gun, which has a magazine, if the magazine is loaded but the action of the gun—the barrel—is not loaded, is that weapon a loaded shotgun within the compass of this Clause?

Sir F. Soskice: I can imagine that to be a case which would occupy learned counsel before a court on some occasion.


I should not like to give an "off the cuff" answer. If it is a weapon other than a shotgun—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A shotgun.

Sir F. Soskice: I agree that the hon. Gentleman asked about shotguns.
I was saying that, if it was a weapon other than a shotgun, it would make no difference at all that the magazine was not actually in position. If it is a shotgun the magazine of which is displaced but loaded, "off the cuff"—it would be for the courts to decide—I should have thought that that could not properly be described as a loaded shotgun within the meaning of Clause 2. I may be quite wrong. That would be for the courts to decide. I would not venture to assert with any authority what would be my simple "off the cuff" impression.
I was going on to say, when the hon. Gentleman intervened, that we in this case exclude shotguns and air weapons. When I say "in this case", I am talking about the second category of cases with which Clause 2 deals. We accept that in regard to unloaded shotguns in the majority of instances the owner will be going about his lawful purposes and that it would be burdensome to require him to show good cause. On the other hand, if a criminal is carrying a shotgun for unlawful purposes, it will be reasonably likely that he will be carrying it actually loaded. This we think, and hope, at any rate, draws the line in the right place.
In the case of other firearms, however, such as pistols, we feel that in the interests of public order it is not unreasonable, but indeed is very necessary, that somebody carrying a gun other than a shotgun or airgun and ammunition should be liable to have to give an account of what he intends to do with them. If he cannot do so, then he is in peril under Clause 2.
Moreover, firearms such as pistols are known to be favourite weapons for use in crime and the criminal en route to a crime may well leave the weapon unloaded, or even in pieces to make its concealment easier, until he gets to the place at which he intends to commit the crime. That is why an offence may be committed under Clause 2, even if the ammunition is not actually loaded in the weapon.
I have considered carefully whether the phrase "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" should be more closely defined. It is, I accept at once, desirable in criminal legislation to make the categories of crime as specific as possible, and we might have tried to produce a Schedule of what would be lawful occasions. The difficulty about this would have been, however, that what is reasonable in the case of one person at one time in one place may not be reasonable if any of these factors alter. Any Schedule would, in addition, have in the nature of things to be restrictive, as it is impossible to provide for every kind of situation which may arise. There might, therefore, if we had sought to set out the various types of legitimate excuse or occasion, have been a danger of persons not being brought within the Schedule who in some circumstances ought to be within it.
The same difficulty had to be faced in the case of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1953, and was, in fact, met by using the same phrase, "lawful authority or reasonable excuse", without any other qualification and leaving it to the good sense of the police and the courts to decide when the words were applicable. This has worked well in practice and I believe that this more flexible approach will be accepted by the public at large.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain a little further why he is confining the second part of Clause 2 to public places? This is the unloaded gun. Is not this an invitation to the potential criminal, the moment he sees any authority approaching, to get off the highway and into a private place, and then he appears to be exempt from the Act?

Sir F. Soskice: He would be acting at his peril if he did so. If he got off the public highway and got into enclosed premises or an enclosed place with his weapon, I should have thought that he might be in serious risk of finding himself within the scope of Clause 1, in which case the appropriate penalty would be a maximum of up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A field or garden?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would the Home Secretary answer this question about


Clause 2? Is it not the case that under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1953, the carrying in any public place of any offensive weapon creates the crime? Surely the loaded shotgun and the firearm posed in Clause 2 are already covered by that Section? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have considered this. What does this Clause add which we have not got in existing legislation?

Sir F. Soskice: The first thing it does is that it greatly increases the penalties above those set out in Section 1 of the Prevention of Crimes Act. That is its main effect. Secondly, it may get over certain difficulties of definition of the weapon in question which are inherent in the definition Section—Section 1(4)—of the Prevention of Crimes Act. It has some slight extending effect there, but the principal effect, I accept at once from the hon. Gentleman, is the change and the increase in the penalty.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely that could have been brought about by merely increasing the penalties and not introducing the Clause at all, with all the difficulties it has, which were adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) as to what constitutes a shotgun, and so on. Is not "offensive weapon" sufficient for our purpose?

Sir F. Soskice: There is a good deal of overlap, I accept at once, between Section 1 of the 1953 Act and Clause 2 of the Bill. This is one of the reasons why we have adopted the expression
without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
But this, after all, is meant to be a comprehensive Bill to deal with a new situation and we thought it right to put Clause 2 in the Bill in order to provide a convenient complement to Clause 1 which imposes the onus on the prosecution of establishing the necessary intent.
Clause 2, which imposes a lesser penalty than Clause 1, leaves the person who is being questioned to show the absence of intent. I accept at once that the main difference between the Section and the Clause is a difference in penalty. It was thought convenient to do it in that way.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one point? Clause 2(a) provides on summary conviction for a fine not exceeding £200 or six months' imprisonment, or both, whereas paragraph (b) provides on conviction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. One would assume that the fine would be proportionately heavier, but the paragraph does not specify the fine. Is it to be £5 or £50 or £500?

Sir F. Soskice: That is quite deliberate. The maximum amount of fine is indicated in paragraph (a), but in paragraph (b) no maximum is indicated, and, therefore, the fine can be of any amount. That is the purpose of the distinction and the phrasing. Paragraph (b) provides a more serious penalty of five years or an unlimited fine, or both.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman elaborate a little further on his answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson)? It seems to me that it is quite clear that if somebody steps from a public into a private place, for example, a garden or a field, he is exempt from the terms of Clause 2.

Sir F. Soskice: May I enlarge a little on that? In drafting these Clauses we have to see that we do not trench too much on individual liberty and the right of a person to do as he will with his own possessions. We have deliberately limited Clause 2 to the public place. We think that it is not going too far to say that if a person is in a public place with a loaded weapon he can be called upon to give an account, but if one is in one's own house or one's own garden and one has a loaded weapon then, for a police authority to say, "Account for the fact that you have a loaded weapon" is going further than is reasonable in the infringement of the liberty of the ordinary individual.
May I also enlarge on my answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), when I said that the person concerned might find himself within the province of Clause 1? If I am asked, "How are you likely to be able to show that somebody has a weapon with him with the intent of committing an indictable offence" one may well be able to say that he is in somebody's house or


garden. If he is, and he is in possession of a loaded weapon, it may well be that the circumstances will point very strongly to his having a criminal intent on that occasion.
That is why I said to the hon. Member that if he gets off the public highway, and goes into somebody else's house or premises, he might find himself at risk of conviction for a more serious offence under Clause 1. But a more considered answer to the hon. Member's question is that we do not think it right, bearing in mind the civil liberties aspect of this, to call upon a person who is in his own house or garden and has a loaded weapon when there to explain why it is that he has it.
Clause 3 enables a constable to require any person in a public place to hand over a firearm and any ammunition for examination, and it provides that any person having a firearm or ammunition with him who fails to hand it over when required to do so is to be guilty of an offence punishable with three months' imprisonment or a fine of £100, or both.
It also authorises a constable to stop and search any vehicle in which he has reasonable cause to suspect that a firearm is being carried in a public place, and it confers a power of arrest without warrant in relation to the new offences. I would point out that no special power is taken to stop a pedestrian in view of the requirements in subsection (1) to hand over a firearm or ammunition upon reasonable suspicion.
I would say to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) that the same sort of consideration inhibited us from asking the House to give power to stop an ordinary pedestrian and search him. It may be, and I would be most grateful for the views of the House, that in stopping at that point we made an error and that we should have gone beyond it. This is our private thinking and no doubt this is a matter that can be reconsidered in Committee if the Bill gets a Second Reading, as I hope it will. A special power to stop a moving vehicle and to search it is, however, necessary and this is conferred by subsection (2).
A power to arrest without warrant is conferred, but no specific power to search the person arrested otherwise than upon arrest. When an arrest is made the ordin-

ary common law power to search becomes available. That is why the Clause is so drawn. The Government accept that it is essential for the proper enforcement of this part of the Clause that police officers shall be able to make reasonable inquiry and take immediate and effective action. I regard this as one of the most important provisions of the Bill. It is essential, of course, that its use should be properly supervised. I am perfectly confident that it will.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the police are reasonably satisfied with the extent of the penalties in Clause 3?

Sir F. Soskice: I can answer that we have been in close touch with the police authorities. It would hardly be proper for me to indicate their views on particular matters, but, naturally, their views were given careful weight when we were thinking about how to frame the Bill. If we had not gone at least as far as we have gone we should have been failing to equip the police with powers which they must have if the Bill is to be something which is real and not a dead-letter.
Clause 4 extends to Scotland, with the necessary adaptations, the provisions of part of Section 23 of the Firearms Act, 1937. These are provisions for additional penalties where persons have committed certain serious crimes while armed or who, upon arrest, are afterwards discovered to be armed. The offences in question are listed in the Third Schedule to the 1937 Act, but, in view of the difference between the Scottish and the English systems of criminal law, it has been necessary to provide a separate Schedule for Scotland.
Clause 5 increases the penalties for a number of offences under the 1937 Act on the lines indicated in my statement. I shall not go through them now, but broadly speaking, they fall into three separate classes. First, the penalties for certain serious offences relating to dealing in certain types of weapons, described in the 1937 Act as prohibited weapons, and the unlawful possession, and so on, of shortened shotguns are increased to five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine upon conviction on indictment or both. These are offences which, under the existing Act, may be tried summarily or upon


indictment. The summary penalties are increased to six months' imprisonment or a fine, of £200, or both.
Second, the penalties for other serious offences relating to the possession of firearms without certificates, dealing in firearms without being registered, making false statements in order to acquire firearms and disposing of firearms to people who are disqualified from having them are increased to three years or an unlimited fine upon conviction on indictment, or both. Under the existing law, these offences are summary only. Under the Bill, they will become hybrid and able to be dealt with either at the magistrates' court or before the higher courts.
When they are dealt with summarily, as in the case of those in the first group, the minimum penalties are increased to a standard level of six months' imprisonment or a fine of £200, or both. This will indicate that even cases tried summarily are to be regarded as serious. The accused will have the option to elect trial by jury if he wishes.
The third class consists of a number of summary offences directly related to those in the first two categories such as making false statements to obtain certificates, and so on. We propose that these remain summary offences, but the maximum penalties are raised to six months' imprisonment or £200, or both. Here again, the magistrates' courts will be able to deal with them and inflict severe penalties, but the accused will be able to opt for trial by jury if he wishes.
Clause 6 enables a chief officer of police to impose conditions on registration in the case of firearms dealers on the lines I have indicated and renders persons failing to comply with the conditions liable to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £200, or both.
Clause 7(1) extends the application of the registration system to which I have referred to dealers who deal in shotguns only. Clause 7(2) brings up to date a provision of the 1937 Act whereby persons sentenced to three months' imprisonment or more or to preventive detention or corrective training may not, for five years following their date of release, possess any firearm or ammunition. Borstal inmates are similarly disqualified during the time they are on

licence, which will be for a period of up to two years.
No provision is made with regard to youths sentenced to be detained in detention centres. Because inmates of a borstal institution or of a detention centre may, however, be the kind of potential hooligans against whom we wish to act, the Clause provides that the five-year disqualification period shall apply also to former inmates of borstal institutions or of detention centres for the five years following their release.
The Bill as a whole will apply to Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland, and the new offences under Clauses 1 and 2, together with the new powers for the police under Clause 3, will come into operation one month after the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If somebody who has served a sentence of corrective training should subsequently, within the five years, become a member of Her Majesty's Forces, as the effect of the Section of the 1937 Act covers procession, would that person be prohibited from bearing arms when lawfully required so to do in the Armed Forces, or would he be exempt?

Sir F. Soskice: I say this subject to verification, but I am sure that there are the necessary exemption provisions in the 1937 Act which would be applicable in such cases.
In view of the arrangements which may need to be made as regards the amnesty and by firearms dealers and the police in regard to the new registration provisions, it may be desirable to give a little longer than one month, and Clauses 5 to 7 will, therefore, come into force by order, but I make clear that it is my firm intention to bring these Clauses into force as soon as practicable after the passing of the Bill.
The Bill will, I hope, go some way towards giving the police the powers they need to deal with the menace of the increasing use of firearms. In my view, it will do this without putting unnecessary and irksome restrictions on the public at large. We shall, no doubt, as we should in a matter affecting the liberty of the subject, examine these provisions carefully in Committee, but I believe that, as a whole, they present a


carefully worked out and comprehensive scheme to beat the gunman. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. William Roots: I have little doubt that the principle of the Bill will be welcomed on both sides of the House, and I think that the Home Secretary is quite right in envisaging that it will be welcomed by the public. It must have been the experience of many of us to receive letters from constituents and other members of the public which might be taken as implying that this House is not sufficiently concerned about the recent growth of crime in both numbers and gravity. I hope that the Bill will demonstrate that the House and its Members recognise the importance of taking action in this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the present level of crimes of this nature as being divided between professional criminals, on the one hand, and youths who get possession of firearms and, virtually, use them indiscriminately, on the other. I hope that the existence of these penalties will have a deterring effect upon the youths, but I cannot help thinking that, in this case, administrative action of various kinds might well be taken to ensure that they do not come by these weapons, particularly the more lethal ones, revolvers, and so forth.
It is apparent that the whole pattern of the organisation of professional crime has been changing, and that criminal gangs have changed in an age of technology in much the same way. They are now highly skilled and utterly ruthless, and they are proud of being both. Moreover, there are fabulous rewards for their crimes if they succeed in getting away with them, and, as in so many other types of crime, the availability of the motor car has aggravated the difficulties of the police. If one adds the prevalence in most criminal quarters of the drug trade, inevitably all these factors give a great temptation to the criminal to adopt any and every means to achieve his ends and to facilitate his escape.
The House, therefore, will be agreed that society must raise the penalty stakes because the offences which the Bill aims at are not those which are in any way

impulsive. The carrying of lethal weapons is a deliberate act and, whether the criminal is a professional or a youth, he is well able to weigh the matter up in his mind before he starts a criminal escapade, when he may well decide that it is not worth being found with a gun on him.
Moreover, the Bill has the great merit that it makes the criterion, as I judge it, not whether the firearm was definitely to be used, but the very presence of the firearm. If a man is bent on crime, or possible crime, he should know that it is a grave offence even to have with him a firearm because, if he has it with him, then, in extremity, excitement, desire for escape, or to achieve his end, he may well be tempted to use it.
A further aspect worth stressing—and I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with it at length—is that of punishment, which goes a bit wider than the Bill, although it is a good example. There is, first, the aspect of direct punishment—that the criminal will know and, one hopes, will be deterred by the fact that he risks up to 10 years' imprisonment if he has a firearm with him.
The second aspect which may be valuable is that, when the court is satisfied that a deliberate and dangerous criminal has been convicted and is before it for sentence, it will be possible, by means of a lengthy sentence, to protect the public by putting the man virtually in a form of quarantine. Today, there are, in my view, a number of cases in which this power of quarantine is called for—not in every one, of course, since we must not have a wholesale desire for lengthy sentences—for they are cases which the court knows perfectly well involve dangerous criminals who have been found with weapons.
In all these circumstances, the court should be able to punish appropriately and I think that the Bill goes a long way towards giving it that power. The House, through the Bill, recognises that a drastic sentence at the right moment can be salutary for the protection of the public and, indeed, for the protection of the criminal himself.
While I welcome the Bill in principle there are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged, aspects which may merit amendment for improvement and


clarification. The principle, which he referred to several times, is of great importance. It is that, while seeking to catch and prevent the criminal from engaging in activities with firearms, it is very important, in spreading the net, not to catch and prosecute persons going about their lawful occasions. The more serious one makes an offence, the more essential it is to be careful in one's definition of just how that offence is to operate. To pursue this in any detail would be to trespass on the functions of a later stage in our proceedings, but perhaps I may give one or two examples.
The first is that of disqualification. The Secretary of State drew attention to the amendment contained in Clause 7(2). But it has occurred to me that there is no reason why disqualification, certainly in cases under Clause 1, should not be complete, possibly with power to apply to the court or the Home Secretary for relaxation. But, in considering this, one may ask in how many walks of life one needs a revolver or rifle. I have led what I believe to be a reasonably full life, but I have never owned either.
There may be walks of life where people have proper reason, but, if a criminal is convicted under Clause 1, surely the first reaction should be that he should be disqualified for life from holding a firearm, including a shotgun. It may be that he should be given the opportunity to apply for relaxation later, but I feel that the power to disqualify should not be merely the comparatively minor amendment in the Bill as drafted. It really merits a provision of its own.
In speaking of Clause 1, the right hon. and learned Gentleman used a form of wording which demonstrated a difficulty which had occurred to me. If the wording in the Bill consisted of the words he himself used in his speech the meaning would be clearer, in my view. Clause 1 says:
Any person who has with him a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence …".
This does not make it entirely clear that what is involved is not that an indictable offence was being contemplated with that weapon.
I do not think that the wording in the Clause is as good as the wording the Secretary of State used. I shall not pursue

that further now, because it is, clearly, a Committee point but, as I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is the presence of the weapon at all at which the Bill is aimed and to that extent we are on common ground.

Sir F. Soskice: Sir F. Soskice indicated assent.

Mr. Roots: Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on Clause 2, I wondered, considering that these offences are to be so serious, whether it was quite enough to have the phrase
… lawful authority or reasonable excuse …
in the Bill, for it is in such general terms. I wondered whether we might not have to consider a clearer definition. At first sight, it appeared to me that someone with a shotgun might he said to be without lawful authority if he did not happen to have renewed his shooting licence on 12th August. The penalty laid down in Clause 2 is perhaps rather drastic for that sort of thing.
These are minor matters of wording, but they are important. I refer to them simply through my agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we are, quite rightly, to create serious offences it is necessary to examine clearly to make sure that we have such offences stated in exactly the form in which we mean them.
The other point on which I hope the Government will be able to give us some assurance is whether the Home Secretary is satisfied that the administrative arrangements for the control of firearms and dangerous weapons cannot be improved.
In general, I must confess that the possession of a revolver by anyone seems to require a very clear excuse or explanation, and I should have thought that it would be possible to maintain very close control of revolvers by administrative arrangements. I recognise the administrative difficulties which would arise with shotguns because of the tremendous number. We may be forced to consider controls even yet, although I entirely agree that that step should not be taken now.
I wonder whether it is not time to review the law relating to offensive weapons under the Prevention of Crimes Act, to which the Home Secretary referred. In that Act, the penalties for


possession of an offensive weapon are quite out of step with those proposed in the Bill. The maximum is two years' imprisonment and, while, admittedly, many of the offensive weapons may not kill—although they may with a heavy blow from a savagely wielded cudgel, or whatever it may be—I am told that even plastic containers which are used for ordinary lotions can be refilled with ammonia, or even more dangerous substances, which can produce a very serious effect. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken to bring the offensive weapons legislation more into line with the Bill arid to make it more effective as a deterrent.
I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to raise individual matters rather on the lines of ensuring that the innocent man is not caught within the net, but, subject to that, the principle of the Bill is to be welcomed.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Although for most of the afternoon I have felt a little lonely on the back benches on this side of the House, I am sure that the absence of my hon. Friends shows their complete agreement with the Bill and their absolute confidence in the competence of my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the House gives it a Second Reading. It is an important Bill, which is to be welcomed by all parties in the House and by the general public.
My right hon. and learned Friend gave some figures about the use of firearms between 1961 and 1964 and in a Written Answer yesterday. col. 189 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he gave some figures dealing only with the limited increase of the use of firearms in offences of robbery or attempted robbery and further limited to the Metropolitan area—just London and just robbery.
The figures show that in 1962–63 firearms were used in 31 offences, in 15 offences in 1963–64 and in 68 offences in 1964–65. Those are between the months October to January in those respective years. The fear of many members of the public about the increasing use of shotguns and other firearms by criminals over recent months has not been unfounded and the general public will, therefore, welcome measures

to tighten up control of the possession of firearms.
Most of all, the Bill will be welcomed by the police. We talk about the war on crime, but we often forget that the ordinary constable on duty is the unarmed front line soldier in that war. If he is protecting the community and society, it is up to us, representing the community, to see that the supply of arms does not go to the enemy, and it is the criminal who is the enemy of the policeman and the enemy of society. We do not want merely to limit the number of firearms and other weapons coming into the possession of criminals, but, if possible, to prevent them from having those weapons at all. It is largely the ordinary constable on patrol who has to meet the very dangerous situation of a criminal who is armed.
I therefore welcome the Bill's penal provisions; but I want mainly to discuss Clauses 6 and 7, which may not go far enough. My criticisms are better made on Second Reading than in Committee, because they may go a little too wide for Amendments in Committee.
Criminals do not apply for firearms certificates. Criminals do not walk into gunsmiths' shops and buy guns. Criminals acquire their guns from other criminals who have stolen them, or themselves break into premises and steal them. That is the ordinary way in which the criminal gets his shotgun or other type of firearm.
Clause 6 gives authority to chief officers of police to impose conditions of registration on firearms dealers, and I welcome the intention. I also welcome the flexibility in that a chief officer of police is given some degree of flexibility about the conditions which he may impose. However, although we may have flexibility, we will not have uniformity in provisions for keeping arms in secure places.
For example, Regulation 1 of the Firearms Regulations, 1937, merely says that the holder of a firearms certificate, not the dealer but the man who owns the gun, must keep it in a secure place. However, it does not go on to define what is meant by "a secure place". Regulations should be introduced under the Bill to define what we consider to be a secure place for


the guidance both of chief officers of police and firearms dealers.
I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1953, which deal with substances which, when used by unauthorised persons, particularly criminals, can cause death, or at least serious injury to others in the same way that firearms can. Regulation 10(4) of those Regulations gives instructions to pharmacists and says that such products
shall be kept in a locked receptacle which can be opened only by him or some other person authorised by virtue of this regulation to be in possession of the drug or preparation.
In other words, the Regulation is specific and comes down to earth in saying what type of security is required. A "secure place" for firearms is not a sufficient definition, but that is the only definition we have in the Firearms Regulations. It may well be advisable to have specific regulations under Clause 6 for the guidance of chief officers of police and firearms dealers. I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the provisions which Parliament has passed to deal with explosives and radioactive substances, and which go much further than the rather lax and vague term "a secure place".
I hesitate here, because I am not quite certain of my facts, but when the Home Secretary is consulting the police authorities I wonder whether he would discuss with them the advisability of an additional requirement in an application for renewal of, or an original application for, a firearms certificate. It is that the applicant should go to the police station with the weapon which would there be tested. The bullet tested would be transferred from the police station to a central forensic laboratory, so that the police could build up a record of the bullets of all firearms registered, in the same way as there is now a register of fingerprints.
A regulation of that nature might well be useful because, if a murder or other crime had been committed it would greatly assist the police to know from which gun the bullet was fired. It is highly unlikely that the owner of the firearm certificate himself would have fired the gun—more than likely it would have been stolen from him; but that fact alone would be of great assistance to

those investigating the crime to know from where the gun was stolen.
It would seem to me to be a simple matter for an applicant for a firearm certificate or its renewal to be asked, since he has such a dangerous weapon, to go to a police station to have it tested in that way. It should not be a great administrative responsibility for the police to build up a record of ballistic impressions of all guns so that when a crime had taken place they could find out from which gun the bullet had come. This does not apply to shotguns, but it could be done for all other types of guns, particularly revolvers, pistols and the like.
Clause 7 is also important because it applies the firearm provisions to shotguns and dealings in them. A shotgun is an extremely dangerous weapon. It can kill, blind, grievously wound and terrorise, and it is used by criminals for all these purposes. I accept with regret my right hon. and learned Friend's contention that it would be administratively impossible for regulations to be introduced to deal with all the existing shotguns so that certificates had to be applied for for them.
The House should, however, realise the present position concerning shotguns. A man can walk out of prison or borstal, go into a gunsmith's shop and legally acquire a shotgun. All that he would then have to do is to walk over to a post office, pay 10s. and be granted a licence for the gun. There is no provision, either in the Bill or in any existing Act, limiting the type of person who is entitled to have such a highly dangerous weapon. The Gun Licence Act, 1870, is a revenue Measure for county councils to obtain money for gun licences, in much the same way as county councils collect money for dog licences. I wonder whether the time has not come for a considerable tightening of those provisions. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's contention that with the vast number of shotguns now in existence throughout the country, it would be virtually impossible administratively to require the owner of a shotgun to have a firearm certificate in the same way as the owner of a gun of less than 20 in. barrel must do.
Could it not, however, be made an offence for a criminal who commits certain types of crime to possess a shotgun?


It might be claimed that he wanted to shoot rabbits or to go out into the country and enjoy a sporting life, but if he had committed a certain type of crime, of which he had been convicted, he would not be the type of person who should have a shotgun. It should be one of the rights of a decent society that because he had committed the crime, he must forgo possession of such a weapon for at least five years, in the same way as similar limitations apply to the possession of firearms.
I welcome the Bill. There are other, more minor, points which might well be raised in Committee, but it goes a long way to redress the balance of English law which puts too much emphasis upon the defence of property and not enough emphasis upon the defence of the individual. Violence against any person, particularly against a person on duty whose job is to protect the community, is a far more serious offence than housebreaking or anything of that nature. The Bill will help to redress the balance and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading because of the warm welcome which, I am sure, it will receive from all sections of the public.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), because I warmly endorse some of the remarks at the conclusion of his speech about shotguns, on which I shall have something to say. All hon. Members will warmly endorse what the hon. Member said at the outset of his remarks about the police and their rôle in all this. My experience, which I am sure he would confirm, is that the police are more concerned about the danger that befalls the public from the promiscuous use of guns than about their own safety. What concerns policemen to whom I have spoken is not the safety of their own skins, but the knowledge and fear that if guns proliferate, more members of the public will be hurt in trying to assist the police.
For good and, no doubt, compelling reasons, the Bill has, as I am sure the Home Secretary would acknowledge, been produced in a tremendous hurry. Although we welcome it in principle, it bears marks of haste. Its timetable, indeed, has been remarkable. On 21st January, the Home Secretary announced that he was examining the adequacy of

legislation, on 11th February he announced his conclusions, on 28th February we got the Bill and today, 2nd March, we have the Second Reading debate. If the Bill was a good and watertight one, it would be churlish to complain about the speed with which it has been brought forward, but it is so clearly a rushed job, and in certain particulars it so suffers from this fact, that one is bound to make reservations about its effectiveness, which we must deal with thoughtfully in Committee.
It is not for me to consider too deeply—and it would be out of order to do so—the motives behind all this. It is, perhaps, fair to say that there are three main motives. The first, obviously, is to attack the criminal on the lines outlined by the Home Secretary. The second is to meet the rising, justifiable public alarm concerning the increased use of firearms by professional criminals and a feeling by many people that the use of firearms is becoming almost a permanent feature of organised crime and is likely to be with us for some time.
Thirdly, however, I have no doubt that one reason behind the Bill is that it is designed to go at least some of the way to replace the Homicide Act. Let me attribute the main purpose of the Bill to what the Home Secretary has said: to meet a new situation. Let us see whether, in respect of certain matters arising under the Bill, it does this. I have the strongest reservations.
Turning to the Bill itself, I come at once to the subject of the shotgun. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary has underrated the menace of the smooth bore gun and that in this respect the Bill is inadequate. I fully appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his advisers have weighed carefully the objections against creating difficulty for the law-abiding majority by what the Home Secretary described as unnecessary and irksome restrictions; all hon. Members accept this. I do not, however, regard this as a matter of increasing control. It is a matter of dealing much more severely with those who misuse shotguns. Before suggesting how this might be done, I should like to say why I am convinced that it should be done.
It is clear to me and to others in a much better position than myself to


judge that the shotgun is playing an increasing part in crimes of violence. The hon. Lady the Minister of State made this quite clear to us the other day in proceedings elsewhere. I would only remind the House of the figures which were given, and which are on the record. In the Metropolitan Police District, in 1964, of the 172 indictable offences in which firearms were used, 45 involved the use of shotguns, whereas in the previous year, 1963, only seven of the 103 offences involved the use of shotguns. As the hon. Lady acknowledged at the time, this seems to point to a great increase in the use of guns, and I think I would be right in saying that police authorities outside the metropolitan area would confirm this trend.
This is not really surprising. There are several reasons for it which I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to weigh carefully. First, I am sure that too little consideration is given to the ubiquity of the motor car. In all highly organised crimes, the use of the motor car is a matter of course. It presents no serious difficulty to stow a shotgun in the boot, or under the seat, and shotguns can always be broken down into manageable parts where the risk of discovery, in terms of the other risks which the criminal is running, is not seriously disturbing.
It is true that Clause 2 renders a person possessing a loaded shotgun liable to an increased penalty, but not if it is unloaded. The fact is, however, that a shotgun, whether loaded or unloaded, is an easier weapon to explain away than any other. In central London, discovered in the back of a car, it is an object of suspicion, but outside London—and many crimes occur outside London—it is not difficult to provide an excuse for it. Any criminal who carries a brace of pigeons in the boot of his car has adequate reason for explaining the presence of a shotgun.
The second factor in the use of shotguns today is the tendency for professional criminals to be more highly organised, and to use more men on one job. While one or two men will find a shotgun an encumbrance, a gang of two or three, or more, will not. There is evidence of that. One man carries the gun; that is his job. This is not an

imaginary danger, because there are increasing signs that the scale of major crimes is increasing.
As security measures get stronger, and as penalties rise, it is almost inevitable that the scale of operations on the other side will rise as well. Whether we recognise it or not, we are, in fact, witnessing an escalation in highly organised crime, and it is this escalation which leads to the inclusion of shotguns in the armoury of criminals going on a big robbery. As the offensive is built up, there is a tendency for the defensive to be built up as well.
Thirdly, the shotgun has certain advantages over all other weapons. As the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bolton, West, said, it has considerable stopping power, and, in an enclosed space, a murderous effect. Its penetrating powers, even against toughened material, are surprising and alarming. I know of some recently privately conducted tests with a shotgun which showed that in certain circumstances it could shatter toughened material which had been proofed against the bullet of a revolver, or the bullet of a rifle. The scientific reasons for this are unknown to me.
Finally, the shotgun is manifestly easier to acquire than any other weapon. The Home Secretary spoke of between 500,000 and 1 million shotguns, but we do not know how many there are in the country. I do not think that this number will diminish under the terms of the amnesty, and nothing in the Bill apparently restricts the freedom with which the shotgun will be able to change hands, not even the terms of Clause 7. What I fear is that much of the Bill will encourage professional criminals who are apt to carry arms to switch to the shotgun. This may well be one of its effects.
As I began by saying, I understand the Home Secretary's reluctance to increase controls over shotguns by registration which would be easily evaded, certainly by the professional criminal. It would not only be unfair, it would be futile. But if a reasonable degree of freedom is to continue for the owners of shotguns—and I accept this—then I say that the Home Secretary will have to crack down harder than the Bill proposes on a minority which makes these weapons a menace.
There are two directions in which the Home Secretary should think again. The first is in respect of the sawn-off shotgun. This point was raised during his speech. I think that under the present Act, the 1937 Act, it is an offence to have a gun cut below 20 inches. That leaves a shotgun with a barrel of 20½ inches within the law. In fact, nearly all shotguns have barrels of 26, 28 or 30 inches. Why is it not an offence to shorten the barrel of a shotgun at all? Why should not that become an offence? The additional inches between 20 and 26, 28, or 30, make it that much more difficult to conceal.

Sir F. Soskice: It is an offence under the 1937 Act to shorten the barrel of a shotgun.

Mr. Deedes: No doubt this point can be considered further in Committee.
I am assured by gun makers that there is no legitimate or sporting purpose for which a man should require the barrel of a shotgun to be sawn down, and, therefore, no one will be hurt if the sawing down of a shotgun is made illegal, even in the hands of an expert.

Sir F. Soskice:: The right hon. Gentleman will see that Section 24(1) of the 1937 Act deals with that point.

Mr. Deedes: Under Schedule 2 of the Bill provision is made to increase the penalties for shortening shotguns, but unless it is still possible to do that, there is no case for having that provision in the Schedule.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If my right hon. Friend looks at Section 24(1) of the parent Act, he will see that it can be done only by a registered firearms dealer, and that no person other than a registered firearm dealer may shorten the barrel of a gun to less than that laid down in the Act. Nevertheless, it can be done by a registered firearms dealer, and if a person can get a firearms certificate he can become the proud possessor of a sawn-off shotgun. Surely my hon. Friend is right when he says that it should proscribed altogether.

Sir F. Soskice: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Schedule II, he will see that that offence is mentioned there, and that the maximum penalty is now five years' imprisonment on indictment for an offence under Section 24(1) of the 1937 Act.

Mr. Deedes: Yes, but it is still possible for an authorised gun dealer to saw down a shotgun. I see no reason why this should not be proscribed, and perhaps we can consider this further in Committee.
Turning to the wider point, I am sure that the Bill must be made to bite harder on the minority with whom we are concerned, that is the professional criminal, in respect of shotguns generally. Under Section 21 of the 1937 Act, the possession of firearms and ammunition by a person convicted of a serious crime is an offence. Should not the possession of a shotgun by a person convicted of certain crimes—we shall have to consider what those should be—become an offence in itself? It seems to me that persons found guilty of certain indictable crimes should not be permitted to hold a licence for a shotgun at all. A convicted burglar would be precluded from shooting rabbits, but I do not see why he should not be.
There are certain motoring offences which disqualify a motorist from driving, and there should be criminal offences which disqualify a man from possessing a shotgun. That penalty must be a real deterrent. We might thus he able to go some way towards guarding against the misuse of shotguns without affecting the 500,000 or more law-abiding citizens who keep shotguns for sporting or other recreational purposes.
I am surprised incidentally to find no mention of penalties in connection with the smuggling of firearms. I would have thought that the Bill would be an appropriate place for that. Some of the deadliest and cleverest weapons in this country have been smuggled from abroad, and if higher penalties are to be imposed in the Second Schedule it is open for consideration that smuggling should be included there.
In our approach to the Bill it is worth remembering—and I have not the slightest doubt that the Home Secretary bears this in mind—that it is directed entirely at a tiny, determined, menacing minority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of hooligans. No doubt they exist in this context, but I do not believe that they represent the major factor. The real quarry here is the organised professional criminal. He will take some stopping. The Bill looks draconic enough to law-abiding citizens; I am not sure


that as it stands it will cause the professional criminal to lose much sleep.
What I fear—and what the Home Secretary must be prepared for under the terms of the Bill as it stands—is a rapid switch from arms covered by the Bill to arms which are not. Any action that we can take now will be far more effective in dealing with this problem than it will be in a year or two's time, when more of these weapons have got into the wrong hands. I do not belittle the administrative difficulties of the problem, but I hope that the Home Secretary will not underrate what the police and others are up against. The danger involved, which is not likely to diminish, is bigger than the difficulties.
That is why I take a critical view of the Bill as it stands and hope that we can make it a much better Measure in Committee.

5.33 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I desire to speak for only a few minutes. It is important that the House should know how indebted we are to the Home Secretary for introducing the Bill so rapidly. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) complained about its shortcomings. He thought that it was a little too hurriedly introduced. I do not agree. On the contrary, while it can obviously be improved in Committee, there is no doubt that the Bill should have been introduced so that the criminal will realise that there is going to be no delay in this matter—that it is being dealt with at once and that the House is determined to see that the kind of crime which has been increasing lately shall be put down. He must be made to see that we intend to ensure that this kind of menace, which has been so alien to this country in the past, is checked, so that the public and the police—who do extremely important work in safeguarding the public—shall be properly protected.
I want to add to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), who is a practising solicitor. Much has been said at times, rather flippantly, about where the legal profession stands and where it should stand. The fact is that its members—especially solicitors—come into contact with problems of this kind

much more frequently than any other section of the community, apart from the police and others who are concerned with the preservation of law and order. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that shotguns should be covered by the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford that it is extremely important that this potentially manacing weapon should be kept out of the hands of criminals if at all possible.
I make no apology for suggesting certain things which are not yet covered by the Bill. The Committee stage is available for amending the Bill, but it is not unimportant for suggestions to be made in the Second Reading debate so that in Committee the promoters of the Bill can introduce Amendments arising from those suggestions, thereby shortening proceedings.
I am concerned about what happens to the community before the criminal stage is reached. I am wondering whether opportunity should not be taken in the Bill to deal with matters which, if not quite so weighty as others, are still important in connection with certain weapons which are used by young people. If he is not checked, a youngster who comes to regard a weapon as being something which gives him prestige, and goes round the countryside shooting indiscriminately at individuals and birds, begins to regard his instrument as a weapon which ought to be automatically in the possession of every person.
The use of weapons is alien to us, except for legitimate sporting purposes. This Bill, therefore, may afford an opportunity to reconsider the position concerning the use and possession of such weapons as airguns by young people over the age of 14. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17—who, incidentally, are not regarded as being adults in the courts but are nevertheless considered to be responsible in respect of holding and using airguns and shotguns—can do a considerable amount of damage to persons and property if they are allowed to roam about.
In my opinion, there are two dangers. Firstly, there is the danger that the habit may be formed of possessing a gun not to use for legitimate purposes, but merely because that is the thing to do. Secondly, the possession of an airgun—which may


be damaging enough in itself—may lead to laxity in respect of possessing any gun, which may ultimately lead persons who otherwise would not have done so, to using guns for criminal purposes. That is a problem with which we have to deal, and this is an appropriate opportunity to introduce a provision in the Bill prohibiting the possession and use of arms by young people between 14 and 17 in the same way as the law relates at present to youngsters under the age of 14.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Is the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) suggesting that young people Between 14 and 17 who use airguns for sporting purposes may be liable to develop a tendency to use them for illegal purposes?

Sir B. Janner: I am not suggesting that for one moment. If the hon. Member would study the Air Guns and Shot Guns, Etc., Act, 1962, he will know what I am driving at. I am suggesting that the provisions in that Act relating to young people under 14 should be extended to apply to young people above the age of 14. There are certain provisions in the Act which enable the legitimate use of guns to continue under supervision.
I wish to refer to an Act which I had the privilege of piloting through the House to demonstrate how the passing of legislation can prevent the use of lethal weapons which, under certain circumstances, may also be used for ordinary purposes. I refer to flick knives. The carrying of flick knives is not so prevalent in these days. At one time they were used among boys and girls who frequented clubs and were above the age of 14—perhaps approaching the age of 17—in the same fashion as airguns are now used. They were carried by young people who went around the countryside causing as much devastation as they could. They were, as the airgun is now, a symbol of prestige, something which made the possessor very proud of the fact that he was a man, or made a woman proud that she was acting in a manly fashion. This kind of thing was prevented by prohibiting the possession of flick knives.
When the Minister is considering the provisions in this Bill, I feel sure he will realize—because he is an understanding man—that the big thing is to try to prevent the formation of a habit which may ultimately result in the use

of the weapons to which this legislation relates by people who may become criminals. I think the House is indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend for having taken such rapid action as he has done in respect of this Measure.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: It is a privilege to take part in a debate in which such unanimity has been exhibited among hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend what has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). I think there was a great deal in what he said which requires careful consideration. I have one or two things to say with which I hope the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and other hon. Members will agree. Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West.
Like other hon. Members, I support the Bill. When I first read it, I thought it had been drafted by someone who obviously had the problems of the town in mind. It was clear from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that he had those problems in his mind. Again and again he talked about hooligans in the streets and problems in the streets. When he was asked what would happen he said that someone would go into a house or into a garden. Some of us represent constituencies which are slightly different in character, and there we are confronted with a very big problem, requiring just as much attention as the problems of the town. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to have another look at this Bill to see whether he is satisfied that its provisions deal with problems which are not precisely those to be found in the towns.
I wish to put four points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems to me that in order to be brought within the provisions of Clause 1 a person must have "a firearm with an intent to commit an indictable offence". The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has referred to an entirely different problem arising from people who have firearms but no intent. They roam round in possession of firearms and loose off at any target which happens to present itself.

Mr. Bessell: It is illegal.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I do not follow that.

Mr. Bessell: I believe I am correct in saying that no person under the age of 14 may be in possession of an air weapon except when under the supervision of a person over 21, and even then the weapon must be used only on private premises.

Mr. Godman Irvine: That is not exactly what I was talking about. I was saying that there are people who possess firearms and roam round the countryside with no intent at all. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is referring to young people with airguns, which is not what I was trying to put before the House.
My point I am making is what happens to people who have firearms but who are not going about with the intent to commit an indictable offence. That is the problem to which I think the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West was referring, and it is widespread.
My second point is whether the Home Secretary is satisfied that the sentence of 10 years contained in Clause 1 will achieve the object which he has in mind. Not long ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman stood at the Treasury Dispatch Box and told us that he would not, even in a case of murder, keep a person in prison for a longer period than 10 years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should compare what he said a week or two ago with what is written in the Bill. A person may know that he will be liable to a period of imprisonment for 10 years for having a firearm without firing it. He may also know that if he does fire it, and if he commits murder, the Home Secretary has made clear that he is not likely to be put in prison for a period exceeding 10 years, which is the penalty referred to in the Bill. That is a difficulty which many of us who were not in support of the abolition of the death penalty felt would arise in many cases. We felt that, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in a grave difficulty here.
The third point which I should like to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns the question of "a public place". A great many people have firearms in places which are not public places, and it is precisely that sort of person who causes all the difficulties, or many of them, in the countryside. The right hon.

and learned Gentleman, when asked about it, said that if a man was in a public place and he looked like being apprehended, he might go into somebody's house or garden. But suppose a man happened to have a firearm at a farm gate and the firearm was not even loaded. He would then be liable to the penalties in the Bill. If, on the other hand, he loaded the gun and started walking through the farm, he would not be liable to any penalty.
For that reason and many others I have introduced a Bill, to which I hope some members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department will have directed his attention, to deal with just that sort of problem. That Bill has the support of over twenty national organisations. Its evidence has been produced from a great many counties and from a great many organisations. The National Farmers' Union has received resolutions from over 20 of its county branches giving evidence about the dangers, difficulties and destruction which are caused by people wandering around with a firearm and firing at the first target they see. In order that this Bill should be of assistance in that problem, the person with the firearm has to be found in a public place. It is precisely because people who have firearms and an intent to commit an indictable offence in the countryside that they will not be found in a public place.
I can perhaps help the right hon. and learned Gentleman by relating an incident which occurred some time ago when I was told that there were a number of horses in a field where I had some dairy cows. This was at midnight, and I went to have a look. Sure enough, there were 21 horses in the field. I rang up the police and advised them that there were 21 horses in my field which were not mine and asked what was to be done about them. It was quite clearly explained to me that as they were in my field there was nothing to be done. Perhaps I had better leave the story there, as I am putting it to the Home Secretary, but to my innocent mind there seemed to be an easy way of getting over that problem. If somebody has a firearm in a public place in the countryside, he will speedily find a very easy way of getting himself out of the difficulties which the Bill has created for him.
My concern arises from the fact that there are so many examples of people going about shooting at petrol tanks, domestic ducks, swans and even at farmers. I know of an example of one farmer who was putting in seeds in a field and found himself shot by some person wandering around with a gun. These are the problems at which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a serious look. I hope that he might today say that the Bill to which I have referred meets a grave omission in this Bill, or that he might perhaps feel that it would be proper to extend this Bill to cover the sort of problems to which I have directed his attention.
The fourth point which I wanted to raise is the difficulty under Clause 2, which refers to somebody who has a shotgun. There is a problem if the owner of the gun has somebody with him and is wise enough to take the gun apart so that each of them is carrying half a gun. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have a look at that, because there are instances where guns are carried in several pieces by armed gangs. In the Bill as drafted, it looks as though that would not be covered.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at the problems of the countryside and to see whether, under this Bill or with the assistance of the Bill which I already have waiting to be heard before a Committee, the countryside will not be forgotten.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am delighted to have heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). Clearly, the countryside must not be overlooked when one is considering the general tenor of this Bill, which was designed entirely with the conurbations and cities in mind, in the main because of the emergency problem which arises from the vast and growing increase in violent crime and vandalism. It has been said that this Bill will be welcomed by the public. Frankly, unless it is amended, it will not. Unless it is amended, it will not achieve its purpose, which is to attempt to reduce crime. It will be judged by its effect on crime, and I judge that its effect on crime will be nil unless it is altered.
The Home Secretary said that the purposes of the Bill were to reduce the supply of arms. In response to a question from me, he said that the Bill was a comprehensive Bill to deal with the new situation. It will not reduce the supply: it is not a comprehensive Bill. What, then, should be the purposes of the Bill, into which we should now try to put some teeth in order to turn it into a Measure worthy of the public need? The first is that the whole question of arms turns on possession. If one does not have them in one's possession one has nothing to fear. The Bill will not reduce the overall manufactured supply of arms; it deals with the possession of an arm by the individual. It will be necessary, therefore, to look carefully at the present position, in which it is far too easy to obtain a certificate for the possession of arms.
This particularly applies in two cases. The first is revolvers. I happen to like antique revolvers, and I would certainly not try to limit those who, for reasons of the fine arts, like to be the proud possessors of old weapons. Equally, I do not want in any way to limit or to decry the clubs of this country which go in for rifle shooting or revolver shooting, because I also used to be something of a shot with a revolver in the war years, and my mother was a great pistol shot. I have to be very careful, or the shades of the past will look down on me with ill-favour from the clouds above. Therefore, let us see that we do not harm the clubs. Subject to that, I am inclined to the view that people do not need to possess a revolver or a pistol in their home and that pistols or revolvers might be certificated to the club or the institution or any place where they may be maintained. I incline to the view—I should like to hear the views of other hon. Members on the subject—that there is no need to be in possession of a revolver in a private place, in one's own home, for instance, or in a public place at all.
Then there is the question of the sawn-off shotgun. I will not go further into the argument, because I may be right or wrong and the Home Secretary may be right—though I do not think he is. In my judgment, the sawn-off shotgun is perfectly lawful. It is lawful if the owner has a firearms certificate for it, and it is certainly lawful for a manufacturer who is a registered firearms


dealer to saw one off. He has the power under Section 24(1) of the Firearms Act of 1937 to do so, and, clearly, many have done it. There are a good many of these weapons about.
We ought to prohibit this entirely, and we ought to consider the prohibition of unusual methods of manufacture of dangerous weapons of a similar nature. We must try to bring about a reduction in the physical possession of firearms in this country. I agree with the very clear and lucid speech made on the whole question of shotguns by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I would say, merely, that I adopt every word he says.
Possession is one thing. Next we come to the unnecessary carriage of arms. The owner does not carry them in a public place. The old idea that one took one's shotgun in at White's or Pratt's or any other of the gentlemen's clubs does not apply and is not appropriate in modern conditions today. It is not necessary. I suggest that the most important aspect of the Bill is to outlaw the carriage of firearms and offensive weapons into any club. Surely that is the purpose of the Bill.
The most serious aspect of crime today is the rapidly growing number of protection racketeers and those engaged in various forms of robbery and in the creation of plans for crime. These criminals meet in clubs. They meet in gangs in different parts of London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. Information as to the clubs in which they meet can be obtained. The difficulty which the police face is that of finding a method of putting these men in prison quickly. These men carry weapons—not always, but frequently firearms—when they go to their club dinners late on Friday and Saturday night. A raid on such premises would be a most effective way of bringing into the net a wide range of the most serious criminals in the country. I fail to understand why some of these premises have not been raided already.
We can legitimately use the possession of firearms or other offensive weapons—not at that moment for the purpose of crime but their actual possession—in order to deal with these men through the unlawful carriage of arms. If the offence

is limited to public places, it limits the opportunities to solve crime. In my belief one of the most effective ways of dealing with the worst criminals in our midst is to deprive them of their weapons and their livelihood on the ground of being in unlawful possession of weapons.
The Bill is not comprehensive; for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, it is conceived in haste, largely because of the fear that from next Friday the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill will be back on the Floor of the House and there will be wide-ranging arguments, into which I do not want to go today. The Bill has been introduced partly on that ground and partly because the Home Office and the police realise that the height of the crime wave has not yet been reached and that if something is not done about it very quickly, the Government will be in great difficulty. I am afraid that they will be in great difficulty, because this Bill will not stop the crime wave.
Clause 1(1) will not assist in this respect because it is not the intent which matters; it is the possession of the arms which matters. Anyone who has in his possession before, during or after the occurrence of a crime in any way related thereto should be guilty of an offence. That is the kind of Amendment which might assist in the furtherance of the objects of the Bill. In my judgment the Bill as drafted does not assist; it is not sufficient to say that it is
with intent to commit an indictable offence".
Unfortunately, Clause 2 is useless. It takes the position no further. The Clause provides that
Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in a public place any loaded shotgun or any firearm. …
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1963, makes exactly the same provision:
Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him"—
the Parliamentary draftsmen used the same words—
has with him in any public place any offensive weapon. …
A loaded shotgun or a firearm is an offensive weapon. The definition subsection 1(4) of the 1953 Act meets the same point.
Thus, these provisions already apply, but I would prefer to indict, if I were to do it, under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, rather than to indict under Section 2 of the Bill. The only difference is the increase from two to five years in sentence. I therefore feel that we could take out Clause 2 entirely by merely providing for the increase in sentence in the Schedule.
Although the two major Clauses do nothing as they stand, this does not mean that the Bill is not a good idea. It is a good idea, but there is no good practical measure in it. Nevertheless, it will give what was needed; it will give an opportunity for the cunning of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who is smiling about these matters—and I see him sharpening his knife for the Committee—to improve the Bill. I am sure that it can be turned into a Bill which can do some useful work, but it will not do all the useful work necessary unless we make it a comprehensive Measure which covers other offensive weapons such as flick-knives and razors, which are also carried in the clubs and dance halls and which are the menace of the future.
The menace of the future of crime lies with the new type of robber, the younger man who would not dream of going in for blackmail but who regards himself as skilled. These people are not afraid to carry weapons, whereas the robbers of the past—I think of well-known names of the 1940s and 1950s—would not have dreamed of carrying an offensive weapon of any kind, let alone a firearm. To have done so would have been regarded as very had form, and it was regarded as unnecessary. Such men relied upon their skill.
Unfortunately, the craftsman criminal is a dying breed. There is a destestable breed about now, not the craftsman but the thug, and more particularly the protection racketeer. Such men are using the shotgun, usually upon the knees of their victims when they refuse to pay the price. It is the great increase in this kind of crime which it will be the task of all of us to stamp out in the years which lie ahead. We must lend our minds, abilities and emotions both here and with the assistance of the public to trying to bring these thugs to book.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I want to clear up straight away one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I have heard voiced before the idea that rifles owned by members of the National Rifle Association and pistols owned by people who shoot at Bisley should be kept in their clubs. This is quite unacceptable for two reasons.
First of all, if one is an enthusiast one has a lot of adjustment, maintenance and work to do on the weapon. Secondly, if one is training a rifle team or someone for a competition, it is not only the amount which the weapons are used on the range there is a a vast amount of dry shooting practice which can be done in the home every day. People definitely need to have their weapons at home.
May I say a few words about the Bill on behalf of the National Rifle Association and of a large number of people who shoot, and who enjoy shooting, in the small bore rifle clubs. I remind hon. Members that we have a flourishing rifle club in the House of Commons. In fact, we regularly ship into this building sufficient firearms and ammunition to hold the place up.
In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I wonder whether he really has a firearms certificate. Is he aware that to extend certificates to shotguns would not be as easy a matter as he appears to think? On a firearms certificate one would not only need the details of the rifle and so on but of all the ammunition involved. Is he thinking of including on Part I of the firearms certificate the 50 million cartridges which are used annually?

Mr. Oakes: I accepted the reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary why it would be impossible to do that. I was referring to criminals and to the fact that they should not be allowed to have firearms, including shotguns, but I accepted the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Kimball: It should also be realised that the police already have sufficient information to enable them to inspect places where weapons are kept and to check


the serial numbers of the weapons. I assure the House that the police are enthusiastic in their duty to do this.
I consider that the most important speech made today was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), for one must consider the Bill in relation to the Armed Trespass Bill, which we hope to see on the Statute Book before the end of this Session. I will not become involved in the important argument—which is primarily one for the legal people—of the dangerous precedents being set by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, which is running under false colours, is bogging up Standing Committee C and is ruining the chances of hon. Members to get the Armed Trespass Bill on the Statute Book.
Hon. Members will probably have received a pamphlet issued by a movement calling itself "Shooters United", which is sponsored by many of the 276,000 people who have gun licences, 30,000 people who have game licences and which has the support of more than half a million people who wish to use firearms legally. The one thing all these people have in common—be it the N.R.A., the Association of Small Bore Rifle Clubs, or the gunmakers—is that they complain about the uneven, I will not say "unfair", administration of the Firearms Act, 1937. That Act states that a chief constable will grant a licence "unless", whereas in practice it has been found that he will only grant a licence "if".
It may be good Socialism. I am fortunate in being able to shoot a few stags and I have no difficulty in having a considerably "long" firearms certificate. However, a member of the staff of the Palace of Westminster who lives, for example, in the London area and who wishes to purchase a rifle to use at a club's range or even at the range in the House will find it almost impossible, certainly extremely difficult, to get a firearms certificate. He will, therefore, find it equally difficult to buy and use a weapon legally.
Each year the National Rifle Association entertains members of Parliament at Bisley. In saying that, I am only too conscious of the fact that the House of Commons Vizianagram Trophy is lan-

guishing in another place, owing to the lack of skill of hon. Members here. When we go to Bisley what is the picture we see? Each year it is the same. The range officers and others at the firing point at Bisley tell us of record attendances being broken. Each year the attendance goes up by about 18 per cent. That has been the pattern certainly since 1960. There has been a steady demand for Service rifle shooting and a tremendous increase in the demand for pistol shooting, sporting rifles and, match rifles for the very long ranges.
The N.R.A. will do everything possible to assist the passage of the Bill, if it will make things more difficult for criminals. However, we draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the question of rifle clubs and the granting of firearms certificates. To become a member of the N.R.A. one must be proposed and seconded by somebody who is known to the council and who is a well known member of the Association. When one has been made a member the secretary of the N.R.A. lets the chief constable in the area in which one resides know that one wishes to do target shooting. In such circumstances nine times out of ten one will get a firearms certificate.
The trouble is that not all rifle clubs are affiliated to or as well run as the N.R.A. I hope that as a result of the introduction of the Bill, the discussions we are having on it and, perhaps, with some encouragement from the Home Secretary, all rifle clubs will become affiliated to the N.R.A. and that there will be voluntary agreement that the same procedure will apply to those seeking to join those clubs—and, equally, to the obtaining of firearm certificates—as applies to the members of the N.R.A. itself.
Enthusiastic firearms owners are perturbed about the right of the police to stop, search and ask whether the weapon one is carrying has any real purpose, the use to which it is being put and so on. One must put weapons in one's car if they are to be taken through Central London to, say, this building, Bisley or wherever one is shooting. Naturally, there must be inspections, but should a constable on the beat be entitled to say whether or not a weapon is the right weapon for a certain purpose;


whether it is indeed a target rifle or something else?
One need only look up the newspapers of 13th February to see policemen in pursuit of a wolf. They were armed with Martini ·22 target rifles, though I cannot think of a more unsuitable weapon with which to hunt a wolf. Indeed, one could not shoot a roe deer with a ·22 rifle. I will not make any comments about photographs of the women police in Westmorland with revolvers strapped to them.
I urge the Home Secrtary to look again, or ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider, the whole question of gun and game licences. Could not the two be amalgamated? Is there still need to continue with the 10s. gun licence? Could not we have one licence, along with a revision of the conditions printed on the reverse side of gun and game licences?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) suggested that the new laws should be printed on the backs of these licences rather than the present suggestions for ensuring clean kills and how to shoot. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter with a view to having more instructive information on the backs of licences.
At the same time, now that the Home Secretary is registering dealers who sell weapons, might we not reach the conclusion—which, I recall, was urged on his predecessor—that the gun code should be sold along with all weapons? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the gun trade will readily accept this suggestion. After all, one must, when obtaining a driving licence, have a copy of the Highway Code. Should that not apply to the gun code when one obtains a weapon?
I would like to send a copy of the gun code to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who seems to have little faith in the administration of the Measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), the Air Guns and Shot Guns, Etc., Act 1962. That has indeed been an effective Measure. Too few tributes have been paid to it today. It has been particularly effective in the way it has been administered by the chief constables of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, and it is noteworthy that one no

longer sees gangs of youths wandering about villages shooting at starlings. Those youths have been driven out of the hedgerows and off the village streets and have turned up at the firing points of many rifle clubs.
I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that there is a genuine demand by people to own and use firearms, particularly young people. There was a time when it was considered important in this country that there should be a lot of people who knew how to be accurate with firearms. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consult with the Minister of Education so that greater facilities are made available in schools to provide practice with firearms for children. All sorts of facilities are provided in schools, but it is rare to find a rifle range. To provide miniature ranges for the use of children would not be expensive and they would grow up knowing how to handle and use these weapons.
If these facilities were provided, and if children in the villages were educated about the weapons that they can have, they would not bother to purchase the air guns and other weapons which are now available which are suitable only for vandalism and cannot be used for target shooting and other lawful objects which we all want to see encouraged and which we do not want the Bill to stop.
I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that the discharge of 50 million cartridges in the countryside every year presents a very serious problem. It is being considered by the Nature Conservancy, the C.L.A. and the National Farmers' Union, who will report to the Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference on the countryside in 1970. I hope that the Home Secretary will note the suggestions and recommendations which they make. We have a very responsible gun trade. It has been responsible over the Bill, although it was pretty shattered by the Home Secretary's first proposals. We will be able to work out a satisfactory compromise between the shooters, the gun trade, the N.F.U. and the C.L.A.
It may well be that at some date a long way ahead all new weapons will have to come under the firearms procedure. If we do that, we must couple it with the testing of all old weapons. A motor car has to be tested before we can


re-license it. It may be that all guns will have to be tested before one can get a gun and game licence. There is a vast number of unsuitable old weapons in circulation which it is not safe to use. While I am on the question of the safety of guns, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the very undesirable weapons which are being imported from abroad. They are not safe, and they are only making it more difficult for our own gun trade to behave in a responsible manner and to produce good weapons for use in this country.
I know that this debate has been slanted towards the question of dealing with criminals. Many of us have doubts about whether the Bill will be effective in dealing with professional criminals. I sincerely hope that it is, and on that ground alone I give it my blessing. But I should like to have an assurance from the Home Secretary that no further action will be taken against the legitimate sports, the legitimate members of the N.R.A. and small bore rifle clubs.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Bill and the debate turn on the possession and use of firearms, shotguns and air weapons. We are discussing two classes of people. The first is the narrow but growing class of professional criminals who carry weapons for the purpose of crime. The Home Secretary's main concern in introducing the Bill is to deal with them. Many doubts have been expressed on particular points, although there has been a general welcome, which I share, for the main purpose of the Bill.
There is a serious criticism that the shotgun is not adequately dealt with as a likely weapon of crime. I should like to ask the Home Secretary what is the position concerning the air weapon, which is "specially dangerous". We are inclined to suppose that air weapons are comparatively innocuous, but the air weapon which is powered by compressed air cylinders or gas cylinders has great penetrative power. I understand that such weapons have been rightly classified as "specially dangerous" in the Rules drawn up under the Firearms Act, 1937.
Does that mean that some air weapons will come within Clause 1 as being

specially dangerous and that if a person carries such a weapon which is unloaded but has ammunition in his possession an offence is committed? If so, the anomalous position arises that a rifle or air weapon can give rise to an offence, but not a shotgun. This strengthens the case for considering including the shotgun, whether or not it is loaded, in the category of weapons whose possession constitutes an offence under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
My main point concerns the second class of people who possess and carry shotguns, namely, the people, many of them young, who buy these weapons because they are easily procurable and confer some prestige. People in the second class who buy these weapons wish to use them and to let them off. The criminal, one hopes, does not want to use his weapon unless it is necessary for his purpose. It is the strong and potent desire to use weapons which has given rise to a lot of hooliganism in the countryside, where it is common for all sorts of people with arms to roam over the farms. The nearer one is to a big city, the greater the number of people who arrive by car, cycle, motor cycle, and so on. It is therefore unrealistic not to deal with this second problem in the Bill.
That leads me to inquire of the Home Secretary what his attitude is towards the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), which has already received a Second Reading but whose progress in Committee is blocked by the Bill to abolish the death penalty which indirectly is the cause of this Bill coming forward today? It is very difficult to criticise this Bill and to deal with it effectively in Committee unless we have some indication of the Government's attitude to my hon. Friend's Bill. Surely it is anomalous that two Bills dealing with the same subject should be going through the House at the same time.
If the answer is that each Bill must take its own course and the hope is that both will become law, we will require a consolidating Measure almost immediately. The sensible thing for the Government to do is to let us know their attitude towards my hon. Friend's Bill. It might be possible, if my hon. Friend wishes, to include the essential points in his Bill in this Government Bill.
I was not happy when the Home Secretary indicated that he thought that it would be a needless restriction of the liberty of the subject if someone carrying a rifle on the highway steps through a farm gate and roams deep into farmland and commits no offence. It may well be that the motorist who is up to no good and carrying a gun in his car could drive through a farm gate and wait for the policeman to go or to dispose of the weapon and drive out in all innocence. It is anomalous, especially if one takes the matter a stage further, because the definition of "public place" in the Bill is that it
includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise".
That would seem to me—I speak subject to correction by the Home Secretary—to include public footpaths going through fields. Therefore, are we to say that an offence will be committed if a man is on a footpath but that if on seeing a policeman or someone likely to pull him up and ask what he is about it will be all right if he diverges from the public footpath, which in law may mean taking a few paces sharply to the tight or left so that he is then off the footpath?
This breeds anomalies all of which would be met if the Government would accept the broad definition that circumstances which give rise to the civil liability for armed trespass—I agree that we need to be very careful about that definition—constituted an offence under the Bill. I am sure that it would make the work of the police much easier, and would not interfere with any legitimate use of firearms. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that it would probably canalise into shotgun and rifle clubs the enthusiasm of young people who want to shoot. It might well mark the development of clay pigeon shooting on the organised basis that has long been characteristic of the Americans, where so many people can afford the cost.
It is unrealistic to turn a blind eye to the number of weapons that are being let off in circumstances that not only lead to damage to property—perhaps in the Home Secretary's view it does not really matter if someone with a gun shoots out every window in an empty cot-

tage—but involve the risk of accidents to bystanders and injury to animals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made the cogent point on the question of intent that such Measures as the Game Acts may well prove a safeguard to the potential criminal. If the criminal says that he was only out after pigeons, and that was why he had a ·22 rifle, or after coypu, or duck—which are not even game—he has a good alibi, but an alibi that would be destroyed if we accepted the concept of armed trespass. He would then have no excuse for committing these acts on private land, assuming that he did not have the permission of the owner of the land. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what the Government's attitude is.
Lest it should be thought that this is only a narrow point, I want to put on record some of the organisations that support the Armed Trespass Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye. The list includes the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, Country Landowners' Association, Council for Nature, Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Council for the Protection of Rural Wales—I am sure that will commend itself to the hon. Gentleman—the County Councils Association, Gamekeepers' Association of the United Kingdom, the Gun Trade Association, International Council for Bird Preservation, National Farmers' Union, the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, the National Trust, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the Naturalists' Association, the Ramblers' Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Rural District Councils' Association, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the Wildfowlers' Association and, in case it should feel left out, the British Deer Society.
We there have a very wide range of interests. It is very difficult to think of anyone going about in and enjoying the countryside who, even without wishing to be a member of any of them, would not approve the aims of some if not all, of them. I therefore hope that we will tackle this problem of this unlawful use of firearms in this Session, and that we shall get a clear indication from the


Government, as that will necessarily govern the kind of Amendments we may table.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We can all agree that the Bill has been produced with remarkable speed by the Home Secretary and those responsible for drafting it, but, as the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) underlined, there are very real signs of haste. There is no doubt that the objective behind this Measure commends itself to all hon. Members. There has been very considerable public alarm about the increase in the numbers of crimes involving the use of weapons of all kinds, and firearms in particular.
Perhaps the most dramatic figures of all were given in a Written Answer on 23rd February, which said that during the period September to December, 1963, there were 29 indictable offences in the Greater London area involving the use of firearms, whilst during the period September to December, 1964, there were no fewer than 97 similar offences. If we compare that with the very considerable increase in the rate of criminal offences in New York City in which firearms are involved, the latest statistics I have been able to discover show that about 10 such indictable offences occur there each day, or a total of 1,200 during a similar period. That shows that unless the Government take very resolute action, the present rate of increase in this country will continue. It is, therefore, imperative that action should be taken, and suitable legislation introduced as quickly as possible.
To that extent we welcome the Bill, but how far does it really go? How far does it meet the responsibility that Parliament has for the safety of the public, and how far does it go towards meeting Parliament's responsibility for the safety of the officers of the police force? As has already been said, the average police officer is far more concerned to ensure that legislation provides the maximum amount of safety for the public rather than his personal safety.
I am quite certain from my own discussions with police officers at all levels that that is true, but it does not in any way lessen our responsibility for the protection of the police force, particu-

larly as its members carry out their duties unarmed, which is, I think, one of the force's greatest strengths. Policemen have always thought it right to resist any attempt to impose upon them the obligation to carry arms. They think that being unarmed has gone a long way in assisting them in their duties, as well as protecting the public, yet the fact that they are unarmed means that we have an unusual degree of responsibility to ensure that they are protected as far as possible.
Will this Bill be effective in the three main objectives of a reduction in the number of crimes committed with firearms, the protection of the public at large from such crimes, and the protection of the police? Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of Section 1 of the 1937 Act provide penalties for the illegal possession of firearms and breaches of conditions of firearms certificates. The present penalties for both of these offences are prison for three months or fines of £50. Under this new Measure these offences carry, in the one case, a fine of £200 or three years' imprisonment, or, in the other, six months' imprisonment and a fine of £200. There are similar increases for various other offences, and these are listed in Schedule 2.
But is this sufficient'? Will this deter the criminal who sets out with the intention of robbing a bank, robbing a mail train, or even lifting wages whilst they are in transit between a bank and the place where they are to be paid to employees? The most frequent occurrences of major crime nowadays are bank robberies and the robbing of those who are carrying wages from banks to their place of employment. Many thousands of pounds are being dealt with. Often the haul is as much as £10,000, £15,000 or even £20,000.
It is in this type of crime that it is most likely that the criminal will set out with a weapon, either to protect himself or to give him a means of escape if he is in danger of being apprehended. Can we seriously believe that the penalties prescribed in the Bill will deter a criminal from setting out on this type of crime? Will they deter him from obtaining and possessing the weapon he will need for his protection, if he is to be successful in his lamentable venture?
I do not think that the Bill goes nearly far enough. I do not think that it contains provisions which are likely to prove sufficiently effective in deterring people from the possession of firearms for illegal purposes. It might even be said that we are, in fact, playing with the whole problem. I must be careful not to be ruled out of order on this point, but previous speakers have suggested that it may be in the mind of the Home Secretary to provide suitable legislation to meet the objections which are likely to arise should the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill find its way through the House. If that is so, it is clear that the penalties for the possession of firearms prescribed in this Bill will certainly not meet the kind of objections which will be raised to the other Bill when it comes before the House on its subsequent stages.
I come to one or two points on the Bill which are examples of the hasty drafting which I have mentioned and which other hon. Members mentioned earlier. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would look again at Clause 2, and in particular line 15. Under the terms of Clause 2, any person who is without lawful authority or reasonable excuse may not carry a loaded shotgun or firearm in a public place. The Clause adds that, for this Clause to apply, it is necessary for the person to possess not only the weapon but the
amunition suitable for use in that firearm".
I see a great danger here. To take a hypothetical case, let us suppose that the Joint Under-Secretary and I were to set out on a criminal career. Let us suppose that we were going to raid the funds of the Callington Brotherhood. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman was carrying the ammunition and that I was carrying the gun. It appears to me that under the terms of Clause 2 neither of us would be committing an offence, unless we were indiscreet enough to disclose the fact that we had it in our minds to commit a robbery.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Unless the hon. Gentleman were also physically carrying the Under-Secretary who had the ammunition.

Mr. Bessell: The point is that, unless the Clause is considerably strengthened, there is a real danger that an armed

criminal, or even gangs of two or three, could evade this provision, which would render it completely ineffective.
Next, under Clause 3, line 25, a constable may require anyone in possession of a firearm
to hand over the firearm and any ammunition for examination".
So far as I can see, however, there is no provision for the constable to confiscate the weapon. Is not this is a very serious omission? I shall not refer again to the problem which arises on this Clause of the distinction between a public place and a private place. Sufficient has been said on this topic to justify my asking the Home Secretary at least to examine this matter carefully, because clearly it is causing much confusion in the minds of many people.
Clause 3(2) gives a constable the right of search. I am aware that there have been protests against this Clause by those who fear that it will in some way infringe the liberty of the subject. We must put behind us any unduly sensitive notions about this risk. We are dealing with the problem of the increase of crimes of violence in which firearms are involved. We know that the increase is considerable. We know that the danger of the increase continuing is even greater. This being so, we must allow the police this discretion, which I do not for one moment believe they will abuse. We must allow ourselves to be guided by their judgment. We must give them the right of search—they certainly need it at the moment—where they have a reasonable suspicion that someone is carrying an offensive weapon for a purpose which is illegal or improper.
On the subject of the exemption of shotguns, I share the fears which have been expressed by a number of hon. Members on both sides. The provisions in the parent Act in respect of sawn-off shotguns have clearly proved to be an ineffective deterrent. We know that this weapon is used widely by people who require a weapon which is lethal. Indeed, few weapons are more lethal than a sawn-off shotgun at short range. In fact, it will blast to pieces almost everything that the shot reaches. This is a startling fact. The sawn-off shotgun is an effective weapon for the criminal to use. Many of the suggestions made from the Opposition benches today should be carefully considered by the Home Secretary and his


advisers before the final stages of the Bill are reached.
There is a great danger that, because of the provisions of the Bill, there will be a far greater temptation for people with criminal intent to use the shotgun in one form or another, either as a sawn-off weapon or in its natural state. Even in its natural state, at close range it can be extremely dangerous.
I am not particularly in sympathy with the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who, unfortunately, is not now in his place, because although in my intervention I did not quote the correct Section it is quite clear that present legislation prevents young people from using shotguns, airguns or air rifles in public places except under supervision. I quote from the Gun Code, which states quite clearly that
No person under 17 years of age may carry an air rifle or an airgun on a highway or in any public place unless the weapon is enclosed in a gun cover which is securely fastened. The possession of air pistols in public places is prohibited altogether.
It would be a great pity if legislation were introduced which discouraged young people from using air weapons for sporting purposes which have given youngsters over the years a great deal of joy and pleasure as they gave me in my youth and as they give my son at present. It would be a great pity if legislation of that kind were introduced, because I do not think for a moment that it is necessary.
I recognise the difficulties, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), of the police registration of shotguns, but that is not necessarily the only way of ensuring that there is a proper system of registration. It is true that to place this burden upon the police would be intolerable. It appears from figures which I obtained last week that there are 6,000 weapons known to the police in the County of Cornwall, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) will agree with me that we are not a belligerent people in Cornwall. But the Chief Constable there suggested to me that if the police had to be responsible also for the registration and the issue of firearms certificates for shotguns the numbers might well be increased to 20,000 or 25,000. I do not think that that is an unreasonable estimate.
The fact that the police cannot do the job surely does not represent an insuperable difficulty which the ingenuity of the Home Secretary cannot overcome. It might be possible, for example, for a form of registration to be introduced which could be handled by local authorities. The registers which they would compile would be readily available to the police and would at least enable a check to be kept on people known to possess air weapons and shotguns.
The Bill has merit and for that reason I have no hesitation in supporting it. It is commendable that the Home Secretary and his Department have moved quickly in introducing the necessary legislation to fulfil the undertakings which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the House in a statement only a matter of two or three weeks ago, but in Committee it will be necessary for there to be considerable improvements.
I hope that the Bill will be considerably strengthened. It is vitally important that every step should be taken that can be reasonably taken to prevent the increase in the use of firearms by criminals, to discourage them from taking them with them when they set out to commit any form of crime, and, particularly in view of the possible fears which the public will feel if the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill becomes law, there is even greater need that this matter should receive the most careful attention of the Home Department. There is public disquiet and public anxiety. Both are thoroughly justified.
The Bill is a step in the right direction and I hope that the Home Secretary in the later stages of the Bill will make certain that it is considerably strengthened and that the step becomes an effective stride forward.

6.55 p.m.

Mr David Weitzman: I regret exceedingly that became of other engagements I have been unable to hear the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the contributions made in the debate, but I am particularly desirous of saying a few words for a very special reason.
There was considerable apprehension in my constituency because of a large number of shooting incidents in and around


North-East London and I put down a number of Questions addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter. The whole House should realise that my right hon. and learned Friend has acted with tremendous expedition. It is only a few weeks since Questions were addressed to him on this serious matter, pointing out the tremendous amount of anxiety that was being felt, and here we have a Bill dealing with the whole subject and giving a considerable remedy.
This is a non-party matter. I am sure that everyone in the House is anxious to see that regulations and legislation on firearms are made as tight as possible to help the police and the public and to alleviate the considerable anxiety felt over many things which have happened in the past. I have no doubt that many improvements in the Bill can be made. I listened with interest to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), for example, about shotguns and their exemption. I, too, feel that there is something lacking here and that some provision should be made. We also ought to examine the punishment meted out to persons who offend under Clause 2.
The Bill as a whole sets out a charter under which one can act. I am sure that in Committee my right hon. and learned Friend will be only too glad to hear all the contributions and the suggestions that can be put forward to tighten up the legislation. Reference has been made to the suggestion that the Bill has something to do with the Bill to abolish capital punishment. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It does not affect it in any way. The Bill before us now does not affect the progress of that Bill at all.
The hon. Member for Bodmin dealt with Clause 6. Danger arises from the fact that the security arrangements at the premises of dealers in firearms are not always sufficient. We ought to go carefully into the question of how dealers in firearms deal with their stock, how they keep a register, how they notify losses to the police, and whether those notifications are followed up. It is not sufficient, with great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, to set out the provision that a chief officer of police may at any time impose conditions. There should be an obligation and there must be conditions of a preventive kind dealing with the keeping by dealers in firearms

of a register of stock in hand, reports of losses, and matters of that kind.
I hope that in Committee my right hon. and learned Friend will be ready to meet suggestions on these points and to introduce legislation to strengthen the Clause in that respect.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the exposition of it, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend upon it. I am sure that the House will be ready to put into effect with expedition a really strong charter in this matter.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I suspect that the Bill has something in common with the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in that it was, obviously, drafted by people who know a certain amount of law but nothing about firearms. A new firearms Bill is not something which we can expect to have very often, and I was hoping that, when the Home Office brought forward its Bill, it being unlikely that any Administration would bring in another in a hurry—the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) is the only other one we are likely to have—our firearms legislation would be brought properly up to date. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would properly consult his own firearms department, which, presumably, is competent, and bring up to date those aspects of the law which have been overtaken either by manufacturing and commercial practice or by what one might call user practice.
To give one example, since the Royal Commission sat in the 1920s and determined that the minimum length of a smooth-bore weapon should be 20 ins., there has come into existence a considerable number of smooth-bore pistols with barrels of 20⅛ins. These are being imported into this country. They require no firearms certificate whatever. They are advertised for sale at £13 10s. and, as requiring no firearms certificate, they may legally be carried anywhere by anyone over 17 years of age; and, under this Bill, so long as the cartridge is not carried by the person who carries the pistol, they may still be carried, save that, under Clause 1, the individual concerned must not have a criminal intent.
I have made representations about this to the Home Office both under the right


hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor and since he himself took office, yet the Bill still leaves us, as under the old Act, with a minimum length of 20 ins. I have checked with a gun maker, and I can tell the House that there is no legitimate reason why a smooth-bore weapon should have a barrel of less than 24 ins. in length. There is no 12, 16, 20, 28 or ·410 bore gun made in this country with a barrel of less than 24 ins.
Therefore, the least to expect was something to this effect in the Bill. Yet Clause 8 defines a shotgun as a
smooth-bore gun having a barrel not less than twenty inches in length".
Why was it not amended to 24 ins. to bring that aspect of the matter up to date?
There are coming into this country a good many cheap shotguns—not all those which come in are cheap, of course—the safety catch on which does not reset when the gun is reloaded. People are used to shotguns which, after they are fired and reloaded, have a safety catch which automatically resets. Such a gun, when carried loaded, is in a safe condition without the person concerned having to remember to reset the safety catch. We have heard a good deal about criminal intent, which is very important, but these are considerations of safety in regard to which the law needs to be brought up to date.
Here is another example which makes me wonder whether the Home Secretary has consulted his own firearms department in drafting the Bill. Section 16(2,a) of the Firearms Act, 1937, in specifying the ammunition which shall not be subject to the normal firearms certificate procedure, excludes from that procedure
cartridges containing five or more shot, none of which exceeds nine twenty-fifths of an inch in diameter".
If the Home Secretary had any experience of sporting weapons or of some of the less desirable habits in our countryside, he would know that the standard poacher's trick—for all I know it will become, if it has not already, the standard trick of anyone wanting to use a shotgun for criminal purposes—is merely to remove the top wad and pour molten candle wax into the cartridge.
One then has what is, in effect, a highly lethal slug with immense penetrative power, but, because the candle wax contains five pellets, it is a perfectly legal cartridge. If, on the other hand, one wanted to buy a cartridge containing a solid ball of lead, spherical shot, one would have to have a firearms certificate. This is another example of the way the law has been overtaken by practice, but no attempt has been made in this document which is put before us as a Firearms Bill to bring the law up to date.
As I read the Bill, it strikes me as a document drawn up by lawyers, and, even from this point of view, I cannot accept the Home Secretary's contention that it is for the courts to decide what is in the Bill. It ought to be for the House to decide what is in the Bill. There are several things in it which, to me, not being a lawyer, are very unclear. For instance, in the opening words of Clause 1(1) we read:
Any person who has with him a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence …
When is a firearm "with him" and when is it not? Is it with him if it is in the back of his car? I know that there is another Clause giving the right to search vehicles, but is a firearm "with him" when it is in his car? Is it with him if it is on a roof rack on top of his car? Is it with him if it is in the boot of his car which is locked and someone else has the key? These points should not be for the courts to decide. They should be made clear in what purports to be a Bill bringing our firearms law up to date. The Bill is not "with it" from that point of view.
The whole House has much sympathy with the objects of Clause 2, to stop people
without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie
on them, carrying firearms in public places. But, however desirable this may be, and however necessary the Draconian penalty of imprisonment for up to five years on indictment, I have an inherent dislike of unlimited penalties. I do not like the unlimited fine. In my view, it is a bad principle to have unlimited penalties in a Bill, and I ask the Home Secretary whether he will, before the Committee stage, decide on a limit, even if it be a Draconian limit.
Again, on Clause 2, as I said in an intervention earlier, there arises the question of what does or does not constitute a loaded weapon. If the Home Secretary had discussed this matter with some competent person, presumably, his own firearms department, the point would have been put to him immediately. A significant proportion of smooth-bore weapons now in circulation are either "pump" guns or automatics.
A great many automatics are coming in from Italy. If the magazine of such a weapon is loaded, the gun is not loaded, I suggest, because a loaded gun, as usually understood, is a gun which goes off if one releases the safety catch and pulls the trigger. But, of course, if the magazine of a "pump" gun or an automatic is loaded, only one movement of the hand is necessary to put the gun in firing position. I cannot believe that what the Clause now provides is what the Home Secretary would have intended had he been sufficiently informed about firearms.
It is not good enough to come to the House with a legislative mess of this kind and present it as an urgent Bill bringing our firearms legislation up to date. Demonstrably, it does nothing of the kind. Clause 3(2) says:
If a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that there is a firearm in a vehicle …
As I said earlier, does this provision include "on" the vehicle? Many people go around the countryside carrying firearms—very often with the intention of poaching—and use motor bicycles rather than cars. One cannot have a firearm in a motor bicycle. One can have a firearm on it or attached to it. I suggest that Clause 3(2) does not, therefore, do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out to do—although I agree with what he is trying to do.
Clause 3(1) says that
A constable may require any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of having a firearm, with or without ammunition, with him in a public place to hand over the firearm and any ammunition for examination by the constable …
Does the constable have to be in uniform? Does he have to have his warrant card with him? Can a special constable, without his warrant card and not in uniform, order anyone to hand over a weapon? If one does not hand

over one's weapon one is liable to very severe penalties—imprisonment for not more than three months or a fine not exceeding £100 or both.
If a person comes up in the street and announces that he is a constable and requires one to hand over one's gun to him, is one bound to do so? We do not know. Obviously this provision should read that a constable should either be in unform or produce reasonable evidence that he is a constable, because otherwise a constable out of uniform, and with no identification documents, could demand a firearm in a public place and, if the person concerned refused, he would have no defence in law because it was a constable who had asked him to hand the gun over.
This is another example of the monumental untidiness of what purports to be bringing up to date our firearm legislation. Most of us welcome the motivation behind the Bill. We know why the Bill has been drafted so hastily and, therefore, so inefficiently, and produced with such expedition. I do not welcome that reason. It is, I suggest, an attempt to placate public opinion because the Government are helping the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill on its way. If that is not the reason, I hope that the Minister of State, for whom I have great respect, will explain why it is that such a lamentably incompetent Bill has been produced.
It is most important that, when deciding to introduce it in a parliamentary programme as overcrowded as ours, the Bill should be an omnibus Measure leaving no avoidable loose ends uncorrected. Therefore, although I do not feel inclined to try to divide the House on the Second Reading, I want to register very strongly indeed my objection to the House being subjected to a half-measure, badly drafted and produced with a degree of expedition which the accuracy and comprehensive nature of the Bill in no way warrants.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I think that every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate, has, to a greater or lesser extent, welcomed the Bill—even my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who had a great many qualifications. It would not be proper for me to enlarge


on them now to a great extent, particularly those in connection with the fortuitous effect or otherwise that the Bill may have on another Measure which has been described as cluttering up Standing Committee C upstairs, and which I hope to bring back to the Floor of the House after this Friday.
It would be highly improper for me to deal with that now, or with the adequacy of this Measure to deal with the very serious criminal situation. But—and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably agree to some extent—it is obvious that the very nature of a sawn-off shotgun makes it a criminal weapon. No one wants to be in possession of one unless he has criminal intentions. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the very possession of a sawn-off shotgun is equivalent to an offence under Clause 1(1) and that a person who has such a weapon has an intention to commit an indictable offence and should be punished accordingly.
The penalty prescribed under Clause 1(1) is that of ten years' imprisonment. But Schedule 2 lays down that the penalty for possession and for doing certain things with shotguns shall be a maximum of five years' imprisonment. These two penalties should be equated because, logically, the very possession of such a weapon shows a criminal intent.
I shall not go on further about these various aspects, which have already been voiced so widely. I want to deal with other points. First, the Bill makes a material alteration to the law of Scotland, for it applies to that country certain Sections of an English Act passed some years ago. Clause 4 applies to Scotland Section 23 of the principal Act. It lists a number of offences, presumably corresponding to those in the English Act. I am not able to say, because I have no knowledge of the law of England, whether these offences do exactly correspond to the appropriate English offences, but I hope that the Home Secretary will go into that with the Scottish law officers and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will also consult the Lord Advocate and assure himself on the point.
No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland has been taking a close interest

in the Bill, but I suggest that he has not been doing his homework.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have not been home.

Mr. Hendry: That may be, but, on the other hand, we very seldom see the right hon. Gentleman here.
Someone must have told the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is no such thing in the law of Scotland as an indictable offence. He has, therefore, tried very hard to find the equivalent in Scottish language. He made a very bad job of it, because he must have got confused between Clause 4, which seeks to translate certain English offences into Scottish terms, and Clause 1(2), which attempts to define an indictable offence in Scotland. He has simply used the same Schedule in definition.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should seek the advice—and quickly—of the Lord Advocate because he has left out all sorts of things which are certainly triable on indictment in Scotland and which are cases in which weapons might be involved. The most obvious crime or indictable offence left out is the most serious of all—murder. How on earth a person who sets out to commit an assault is to be caught under Clause 1(2), or a man who sets out deliberately to murder another man is to be caught, I do not know. The whole thing is illogical.
All sorts of offences which are certainly triable on indictment in Scotland are not included, including sedition. Obviously, a man who intends to commit the very serious crime of sedition is more than likely to use a firearm to help him to do so. The same is true of the ancient Scottish crime of treason—a crime not confined to Scotland, but which we call treason-felony in Scotland and which is an indictable offence. I should have thought that the Secretary of State, with his intelligence and erudition, would not have required advice from the Lord Advocate about this subject. There is also the ancient Scottish crime of hamesucken, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman knows what that means. If he does not, I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will be only too happy to tell him.
There are various other matters I could mention, but I do not want to waste the


time of the House by giving a list of crimes which, in Scotland, are triable on indictment. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman goes to Edinburgh, and quickly, to find a proper definition for indictable offences under Scottish law.
There is another matter which has not been mentioned, but which is very important. I hope that the Home Secretary will give it serious consideration between now and the Committee stage. Almost exactly a year ago, I was given the permission of the House to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to provide that third party insurance cover should be compulsory on the carriage and use of guns.
That Bill suffered the fate of many Private Members' Bills and was not passed. However, while it was before the House, I had the advantage of consultations on the subject with many people who were knowledgeable about it, including the insurance industry, the National Farmers' Union, women's groups and public welfare and numerous others who were concerned.
I was also advised by some hon. Members who were then connected with the Home Office that technical difficulties might make my Bill rather unworkable. However, they told me that there was a very simple way in which my suggestion could be made workable. It was simply that it should be made an offence to use or carry a gun without there being in force a policy of insurance to cover third party risks.
This is a very serious matter and I should like to repeat two instances which I mentioned to the House a year ago. The first concerned a constituent of mine, a man with a very good record of public service, who went out shooting one day and was involved in an accident. He was shot in the face and lost the sight of one eye. It was cold comfort to him to know that it was an accident. What made it even more serious was that the person who fired the shot, whether negligently or not is not for me to say, was a man of straw and that it was absolutely impossible, even if my constituent had wanted to do so, to recover damages for the loss of his eye.
The other instance concerned a lady who had left her baby in a pram in her garden. In an adjoining field, a neighbour was shooting pigeons, a perfectly

proper occupation. He was a little careless. It is a law of nature that what goes up must come down, and the shot came down on the pram in which the baby was lying. It was by the mercy of heaven that the baby was not injured, but it might have been. In that case, too, the person who fired the shot and who was undoubtedly guilty of negligence was a man of straw. If the baby had been injured or killed, there would have been no possibility of recovering damages.
Such accidents do not happen very often. The insurance companies tell me that the number of claims in respect of shooting accidents is very small. No hardship would be involved by the introduction of a provision of this sort. I am advised that the normal householder's comprehensive policy covers the policyholder against third party damages from accidents from guns. But this is for the householder who does not use a gun very often. The extra insurance cover for a person using a gun frequently could be obtained for a matter of 7s. 6d. a year, which is not much for anybody.
I am told by the Farmers' Union Insurance Co. that a farmer is normally covered free under his ordinary third party policy for accidents from guns when he is shooting vermin, but that if he makes a wider use of a gun and shoots game, or rabbits other than vermin, the cover can be obtained for a matter of 10s. a year, which is not much by any standard.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter. There is no administrative difficulty. Either the proper third party insurance would be in force, or it would be appropriate for a penalty to be imposed because of the danger and risk unnecessarily caused to innocent members of the public.
I welcome the Bill. By and large, it is a good Bill, but it can be made better and I look forward to its emergence from Committee in a better form.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the Bill in principle, if not in some of its details, perhaps a rather warmer welcome if I apprehend aright that it is meant to be a Bill which deals basically with criminals carrying guns. On that basis, I think it will go some way in helping the public to


understand that we are anxious and concerned to make sure that it is protected as far as it is open to us. The Bill will be effective chiefly because of Clause 2. It is often difficult to show intent, which is a difficult thing to prove in law, but the carrying of loaded firearms in public places is something which we should mark out as particularly reprehensible, and mark it out by the severity of the penalties which we make it open to the courts to impose.
The Bill has been discussed in various ways. There are those who are anxious about shotguns and the fact that shotguns, ordinary, sporting, small-bore guns, cannot be brought within the ambit of the Bill. I understand the difficulties in that respect, but, equally, in practical terms it is unlikely that the unshortened gun will ever feature widely in crime. I have never heard of the ordinary shotgun, unshortened, uncut down, or a rifle, being used in a criminal case. What one finds is that guns which have been shortened are used most prevalently in London. Above all, one finds that revolvers of all types, often of foreign manufacture and often brought into the country illegally, get into the hands of criminals, as do other weapons about which I shall speak later.
I want particularly to deal with the problems of revolvers. It has already been said that the crux of the matter is possession. It is no good having a licensing system, because criminals do not take out licences. It is no use having protection for shops which sell revolvers and having strict rules about where they shall be kept, because in practice criminals are able to break into such places and to get their hands upon revolvers in ways which no licensing system and no protection would stop. We have an open coastline and revolvers come into the country illegally and can be stolen.
I appreciate the hardships that would be caused if we decided that there were certain fire arms which in themselves served no useful purpose but merely the furtherance of crime. Without suggesting that we should interfere in any way with rifles which are used in shooting clubs, or any form of gun which normally cannot be used in crime, I should have thought that the time is now coming when we should consider whether the possession

of a revolver at home was something which should not be permitted to anybody.
I accept entirely the difficulties that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). I acknowledge that shooting sports in which revolvers are used would be interfered with. This, however, is a price which we should be prepared to consider and to pay, if necessary, for the advantage of being able to say that the mere possession of a revolver of any type is in itself a criminal offence and should be stopped.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What advantage would be gained by saying that it is an offence to have a revolver that is not gained by saying that it is an offence to have a revolver illegally?

Mr. Miscampbell: Of course, there is an advantage. The moment that we say nobody can have a revolver we can close down every shop which sells them. We could take away the opportunities for revolvers to be stolen and otherwise obtained. This would make acquisition much more difficult for the casual criminal who wants to get a revolver reasonably easily. It is questionable whether a man who is determined to get a revolver could be prevented from doing so, but it would be a considerable improvement for the law-abiding citizen if we were to say that a revolver in itself was something which should not be available in private hands.

Mr. Kimball: That suggestion is not a starter. Is my hon. Friend aware that the most efficient humane killer, the use of which is now encouraged, is a kind of revolver? To adopt what my hon. Friend is suggesting, we would have to make all humane killers illegal.

Mr. Miscampbell: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about humane killers. Starting guns for sporting races are also capable of being changed into lethal weapons. It might well be possible to produce an instrument which made a sufficiently loud report to start races without its being a revolver. I am prepared to accept that there are some instruments, such as humane killers, which might well be turned into revolvers. None the less, it would be a progressive step to prohibit altogether the possession of revolvers.
Be that as it may, my second point is worth making at this late stage in a debate which has been well canvassed. We seem as a House to be satisfied to face all our problems, especially in this matter, piecemeal. We are dealing with a Bill which is agreed on all sides to have been brought forward expeditiously or hurriedly, depending on how one looks at it. It has arrived before the House within a very short time.
The Bill has come in response, one has little doubt, to the appalling figures that came from last December's crime wave in London and other places. It might have been forced upon us quite soon in any event. Even so one suspects that the recent outburst of violence has brought forward the Bill rather more quickly than one would have expected in the normal course of Parliamentary time and procedure.
Piecemeal legislation has, however, landed us in most of our troubles with the law. I do not intend to tease the Home Secretary over another Bill towards which I was sympathetic when it came forward and was sent to Committee. It is, however, extraordinary that we can be here today discussing penalties in terms of ten years and we do not know the Executive's view concerning life sentences. This is a problem which confronts us because of piecemeal legislation. We have, above all, the tremendous divergence which seems to be coming between what the Executive thinks a sentence should be and what the Judiciary considers that it should be. One has only to think of what happened with the train robbers, with sentences of 20 or 30 years apiece, to understand the tremendous difference of view and outlook which exists between the Executive and the Judiciary.
Unless we are prepared to face this problem as a whole, we are likely progressively to get ourselves into greater difficulty. We cannot try to deal with each form of crime as it comes along with another little Bill which will add five years here, ten years there, or a limited fine. This will not do.
I regard this as an opportunity to say straight away that one of the most profitable forms of legislation that could come before the House of Commons, and one which would be most widely welcomed throughout the country, would be if we

were prepared to examine the whole of our sentencing policies, to look at the whole relationship between one criminal offence and another and to make a rational gradation for each of the various offences and what the courts should do about it. Because I earn part of my money in criminal cases, I am well aware that that is asking a great deal, but we really cannot go on trying to stop every little hole by another little Bill.
Perhaps the most profitable thing that we could do, at a time which, I hope, is not far distant, is to reconsider the whole of this problem again so that we do not find ourselves in the position which faces us today of trying to deal in a stop-gap manner with something which is now becoming crucially important for the country and everyone in it.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I apologise for entering into the debate at this late hour, but I will not detain the House long. As most hon. Members will, I hope, appreciate, I have been engaged in other duties which have detained me. There are, however, three aspects which I wish to put forward. First, in common with other hon. Members, I give a general welcome to the Bill. It will bring reassurance to many ordinary people that the law concerning the carrying of firearms is to be strengthened.
The 1937 Act controls the manufacture, sale and possession of the more dangerous types of weapons, but I want to utter a word to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning another aspect to which hon. Members have referred, and that is the undoubted growing menace of the use of shotguns throughout the country. As I understand it, the purchase of such weapons by anyone over 17 can be made without a firearms' certificate, simply by purchasing a licence for 10s. at a post office. I am informed that in Glasgow this problem has become more dangerous, and has been accentuated by the fact that within three weeks there have been three incidents in which this weapon has been used, and I know that if my right hon. and learned Friend seriously considers this matter it will be appreciated by those concerned with this problem.
Chief constables will be responsible for administering the provisions of the Bill, and we must urge them to exercise even


greater care than they do at the moment to make sure that the applicants for the weapons require them for a legitimate purpose. Despite the provisions of the 1937 Act, the use of these weapons is increasing.
The question which ordinary people are asking is: where are these weapons coming from? What are the sources of supply? Pretty much the same attitude has been taken with regard to the supply of weapons as has been taken with regard to the supply of drugs. We know that they come mainly from illicit sources. We know that they are the product of thefts and robberies at various places.
There are, of course, other sources of supply. Some of these weapons are left lying about in people's homes, and I support what was said by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) in that connection. In too many instances the security arrangements of the places in which these weapons are kept are quite ineffective. Just as, occasionally, doctors are careless in leaving their prescription pads lying about, or the lockfast means of securing hospitals are not always what they should be, so, too, the security arrangements in places like drill halls are inadequate to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consult the Minister of Defence, and those Ministers who have final responsibility for places such as Territorial Army drill halls and premises in which cadets, or the R.N.V.R., do their drill, to ensure that the security arrangements in them are adequate.
My one point of regret is that Clause 2 does not include shotguns or airguns. I am aware that they are covered by the 1962 Act, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt confirm that recently I have sent him cases of incidents in my constituency when young people have lost an eye, or suffered serious facial injury, through the use of these weapons, and I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider this matter.
I understand that some shotguns can be loaded in a matter of two or three seconds, and that it would be an advantage to the authorities if the present

minimum barrel length of 20 inches was increased, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this point, too.
My last point seems to have a particularly Scottish connection. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, parts of Section 23 of the 1937 Act are to be extended to Scotland. Authorities in Scotland to whom I have spoken welcome this extension. What we cannot understand is why they were not extended to Scotland all those years ago. The police authorities certainly welcome this extension, but I should like to know why, even now subsections (4) and (5) of Section 23 are not to apply to Scotland, because they contain provisions which would seem to be of advantage to us.
Those are my comments on welcoming the Bill. I shall be pleased to hear the answers to the points which I have raised.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: I am certain of one thing, and that is that this has been a useful and constructive debate. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill in principle. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) said when he opened the debate from this side, we welcome any sensible step which may reduce the number of crimes in which firearms are used. None the less, hon. Members on both sides have pointed out some serious gaps and omissions in the Bill. No doubt some of them are the result of the hasty drafting which had to be done in the circumstances, but others are much more fundamental.
I particularly agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). The police, as one would expect, have taken a completely unselfish attitude about the use of firearms by criminals. The police look on themselves as the protectors of the public, but we in this House know that very often they have to bear the brunt of serious attacks, and suffer injury themselves. There is a duty on us to ensure that the police, in carrying out their duty of protecting one and all of us, are protected themselves in so far as it lies within our power to protect them.
The background to the Bill is the considerable rise in the number of offences of robbery, or attempted robbery, known to the police in which firearms have been used. During his opening speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary gave us a number of figures in this connection. The most depressing feature is that the trend of a decrease in the number of crimes of this kind, which had been going on for some years, seems, one might almost say quite dramatically, to have been reversed.
Taking the figures for the metropolitan area alone, there were 127 cases in 1961, 118 in 1962, 103 in 1963, and then in 1964 there was a rise to 172. That increase is bad enough in itself, but what is particularly significant is the dramatic increase in the number of cases in which shotguns were used. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but the figures for the metropolitan area show that there were seven such cases in 1962, seven in 1963, and 45 in 1964, an increase of 500 per cent., compared with an increase of about 70 per cent. in equivalent crimes connected with shooting. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentle man and his advisers will look very carefully into the significance of this problem.
I appreciate the points which have been put very forcibly and clearly about the control of shotguns and similar weapons, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). There is a serious deficiency in the Bill, in that it fails effectively to deal with the problem of shotguns, especially sawn-off shotguns. I agree with my hon. Friends; there is no reason why anyone needs a sawn-off shotgun unless he intends to use it to commit a crime.
Earlier in the debate we had some discussion on the question who was allowed to convert an ordinary shotgun into a sawn-off shotgun. That is not very important. It is quite easy for anyone, at the shortest notice, simply with the use of a hacksaw, to convert a shotgun into a sawn-off shotgun so that he can hide it down the leg of his trousers. The Home Secretary should accept the advice given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and others, and give

serious consideration to the imposition of a complete ban on sawn-off shotguns of any kind.
I would go further than that. The Home Secretary should consider the possible banning of shotguns with a barrel length of less than 24 inches. I cannot see that a shotgun with a length of barrel less than 24 inches has any sporting purpose, or any purpose for which a shotgun is normally employed.

Sir F. Soskice: When the hon. Member talks about the banning of shotguns, what exactly does he mean? Does he suggest that it should be an offence to possess one? Does he mean that in no circumstances whatsoever must anybody possess such a gun?

Mr. Sharpies: Yes, I mean that. I see no reason why anyone should have or sell a shotgun with a barrel of less than 24 inches. I hope that the Home Secretary will seriously consider that suggestion.
I am not sure whether the provisions of Clause 7(2) apply to shotguns. Like many of my hon. Friends, I take the view that a person who has been convicted of a serious crime should be banned for a considerable period—and for life in some cases—from possessing a shotgun. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that the provisions of Clause 7(2) will be extended to apply to shotguns, and will also be able to assure us that the suggestion that we have made will be carefully considered. I am also not clear about the position in relation to air guns. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain it. This question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman devoted a considerable amount of his speech to the definition of "a public place", in Clauses 2 and 3. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet pointed out that the wording in Clause 2 was largely taken from the provisions of the 1953 Act. The National Farmers' Union, in a memorandum which has been circulated to many hon. Members, if not all, my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South, have pointed out some of the limitations of this definition,


particularly in respect of crimes committed in the countryside.
We must remember that crimes of this kind are not confined exclusively to towns and cities. We recall that the train robbery, although not involving the use of firearms, was committed in the country. Some of the points brought out in the memorandum to which I have just referred are very relevant to a crime of that kind. I am sure that the House would like a clear explanation of the situation from the Under-Secretary.
We should also like to hear, in this connection, more about another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, namely, the position of clubs—and I would like to includes cafés. Does the Bill apply to cafés or clubs in which the police have reason to suspect that a crime is being planned? Many crimes of this kind are planned by criminals working in clubs or small cafés. Are they covered by the definition of "a public place"? If they are not, they should be.
We shall also want to give careful consideration to the question of penalties. I hope that the Home Secretary will study the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that the penalties for smuggling arms into this country—which must be one of the sources from which criminals obtain these weapons—should be carefully examined to see whether they are in line with the current needs of the situation.
The Bill is brought in against the background of a steeply rising rate of crimes of violence. We think of armed robbery, but we also think of other crimes. We read this weekend of the stabbing of a number of young men in Trafalgar Square, for no reason whatsoever as far as can be discovered, and, also, that the gang which carried out this act had apparently been working for some time in Trafalgar Square. This is merely another part of the general problem.
We appreciate the administrative and other problems which exist in connection with the registering of firearms and similar weapons. I have no doubt that they are very difficult ones, but, for the reasons which have been put forward so forcibly by many of my hon. Friends, I do not

believe that the Bill provides the whole answer. Other Bills have dealt with certain weapons and aspects of the general problem, but the trouble is that new weapons are being developed all the time.
The Armed Trespass Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye, must be looked upon as complementary to this Bill, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that that Bill is being treated as such. We would like to know the Government's attitude towards my hon. Friend's Bill, which has the support of many organisations of every kind.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South spoke of the age of technology in crime. I believe that this is a problem to which we must give very serious consideration. What is needed is a comprehensive review into the whole wide problem of the use of offensive weapons in view of the growth in the rate of crimes of this kind and of the technological developments of which criminals are very ready to make full use. The Bill must be looked upon as a stopgap Measure. It is no substitute for the major review which we must have, and legislation to deal with the whole problem which I hope will be introduced before very long.
We welcome the provisions in the Bill so far as they go. We shall seek to improve the Measure during the Committee stage and to patch up the gaps so far as we can. It certainly will not be our intention to delay one day longer than is necessary this legislation from getting on to the Statute Book.

8.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): The closing words of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) were in harmony with every speech which has been made in this debate. All hon. Members approve the principle of this Bill and recognise that some action had to be taken in view of the increase in the number of criminals who resort to the use of firearms. There has been some discussion about the motives for the Bill. I can tell the House that the reason for the Bill is that we are determined to check the rise in the use of firearms and that we are not going to see the growth of gangsterism in this country. That is why, despite all the criticisms


which have been made, that I say that this is a tough Bill. It provides for tough penalties. There is no doubt that it is capable of amendment in Committee, like all other Measures. I have yet to know of a Measure of substance which has passed through this House without being amended in Committee. So long as we have such reasonable people in office—

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: And in opposition.

Mr. Thomas: And in opposition tonight, we shall, I know, make progress. None the less, this Measure is a sad commentary on our generation. We have to be realists and to deal with things as they are, not as we would like them to be. No one can feel happy about the fact that we have so to extend the powers of our police officers and so to increase the powers of the courts to award penalties for crimes, merely because of the irresponsible violent thugs who represent a tiny minority in our community but who damage our lives out of all proportion to their numbers. The public has a right to feel that stern penalties will be inflicted on those who are found guilty of carrying firearms with intent to use them in the pursuit of criminal aims.
The public has a right to believe that we should make it as difficult as possible for criminals to obtain firearms and that is dealt with in the Bill, as I shall outline in a moment. Not only the public, the police have a right to look to this House for protection. Policemen, on our behalf, undertake the most dangerous and unpleasant tasks. I admire enormously the courage of the "bobby" lonely on his beat at night who has the courage to tackle a man who might be armed. If hon. Members can keep a secret I will tell them that once I was a sergeant in the special constabulary, and no one was more nervous than I when I was alone. Fortunately, in that part of the world from whence I come the sort of person for whom we are catering is rarely found—he comes as a visitor.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Was not the hon. Gentleman armed, as a special sergeant?

Mr. Thomas: Never as a sergeant. When I felt nervous I went to look for another "bobby".
The police have a right to feel that this House will give to them—in the words of Sir Winston Churchill—the tools to get on with their jobs. Good will is not enough. The police may be suffocated with good will. What they want from this House are practical deeds to strengthen their hands and also to intimidate the criminal.
The problem which we seek to resolve is not new. Some people have spoken tonight as though it had emerged in recent months. Unfortunately, throughout 1964 there was a steady build-up of this sort of crime, and it disturbs us all. Our sense of urgency about this matter is revealed by the fact that Clauses 1 to 4 which, as the House will know, contain provisions for inflicting very heavy penalties, will come into effect within a month of the passage of this Bill. The provisions in Clause 5 will be delayed a little. They will come into operation by order of my right hon. and learned Friend, because the amnesty period requires a delay. We must allow time for the registration of firearms dealers who hitherto have not been registered, for instance, those who deal only in shotguns and who come within the scope of the Measure. We must also allow time for chief constables, as registration officers who will be imposing conditions on firearms dealers, to allow those conditions to become known.
A great deal of the discussion tonight has centred around the shotgun, and I will do my best to answer the arguments advanced and the points which have been raised. If I overlook any, I will do my best to write to the hon. Members concerned. I think that is always a very good safeguard for anyone standing at this Box to adopt. My right hon. and learned Friend gave some figures to the House. He is aware of the problem presented by the shotgun. The figures show an increasing use of shotguns by criminals, and that cannot be denied. My right hon. and learned Friend, after considering the problem from every angle, and for reasons which I have advanced, has decided that the possibility of extending the firearms certificate procedure to shotguns is not practicable. On the other hand, there is a great deal in this Bill to do with shotguns.
The Bill goes a long way towards imposing controls on shotguns. Clause 1


creates a new offence which carries the penalty of ten years imprisonment—that of carrying firearms with intention to commit a serious offence. That applies to shotguns, if one is being carried with intent. Clause 2, to which a great deal of attention has been drawn, makes it a serious offence to carry a loaded shotgun in a public place. The House will be relieved to know that a public place includes a cafe or a fairground—[An HON. MEMBER: "A club?"]—though not a club. It includes any place where the public have the right to enter, even if they have to pay to enter. But, of course, the public as a whole have not the right to enter a club. It does not apply to the club within the terms of our definition.
The extra powers given to constables by Clause 3, requiring any person in a public place to hand over a shotgun and any ammunition for examination, also applies to shotguns in appropriate cases. The penalties for certain offences under the firearms Act, 1937, some of which apply to shotguns, are being increased. In particular, the maximum penalty on indictment for offences under Section 24 of shortening shotguns or possessing shortened shotguns is increased by the Bill from one year's imprisonment and/or £100 fine to five years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. So the shortened shotgun is dealt with in this Measure.

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessell rose—

Mr. Thomas: I have one more point to make on the shotgun.
The registration procedure for dealers in firearms which require a certificate is extended by Clause 7(1) to dealers in shotguns only. This is something new which will bring in many ironmongers and fancy goods dealers who sell shotguns but who hitherto have not had to be registered. They will therefore come within the ambit of this Clause, and the conditions which chief officers of police will be authorised by Clause 6 to impose will extend to them as well. So the House may see that we have taken very seriously this question of the shotgun and of the shortened shotgun. We have endeavoured—I believe that it would be the will of the House that we should endeavour—to tackle the criminal who would use the shotgun, whilst ensuring

that the country gentlemen and those in the rural areas who like to pursue their habits of shooting are not in danger of committing criminal offences in the pursuit of pastimes to which they have been devoted for so long.

Mr. Bessell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could explain to the House whether the provisions of this Bill supersede the provisions of the 1937 Act under Section 24(1), which states that:
No person other than a registered firearms dealer shall shorten the barrel of a smooth bore gun to a length less than 20 inches.
In effect, this gives the right to a registered firearms dealer to produce a sawn-off shotgun. This seems to me to be dangerous. Secondly, would the Under-Secretary of State clarify the position with regard to the difference between a private and a public place as under Clause 2 of the Bill, particularly if, for example, a person is in a public place and then goes into a private garden or private grounds—not indoors, still out of doors—but in a private place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I would remind hon. Gentlemen that interventions should not be second speeches.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has been here for months, but he has learned much in that time. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer—

Mr. Bessell: No.

Mr. Thomas: He sounded like one. I do not want to offend my right hon. and learned Friend, of course.
I would say that, whatever obligations there may be under the 1937 Act, anyone who possesses a shortened gun—whoever shortens it—will know the sentence to which he is liable. I would think that, since chief constables now have the duty to lay down the conditions under which people shall have a certificate for the sale of these shotguns, a firearms dealer would know that if he plays about in the fashion described by the hon. Member for Bodmin his licence would be in peril. This is something which we do not consider lightly, and I hope that the chief constables will realise that they will have the full support of this House in tackling this subject with vigour.
The question of pistols has been raised. It was raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who was himself a pistol shot, I believe, and so was his mother. I shall treat him with greater respect. The question of the pistol and the pistol club or revolver club is one in which, I think, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is interested. Here, the precautions which are taken are first-class. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who run these clubs for the care which they exercise. In case they fail, the chief constable keeps a special eye on them, because we realise that they represent a possible source of weapons being available to the general public. It is true, of course, that members of revolver clubs prefer to keep their revolvers at home. If they are kept in the revolver club, there is all the greater danger, when there is a burglary, of mass arms being available. Knowing the precautions which are taken and the registrations which are necessary, we feel that, at present at least, there is no reason to interfere with the present custom.
I find myself paying tribute to the National Rifle Association. I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough will not take this amiss. I listened with very great interest to his speech on this question. I always look on him as something of a country gentleman because of the interest which he reveals in the House. I know that when he spoke for the National Rifle Association tonight he was speaking for a very responsible organisation. We have no desire to interfere with the liberty of respectable people pursuing their own ways—it is not my way however, though I had better leave that subject—but we are seeking to make sure that they are protected. This Bill is not an attempt to deal with an overall review of the firearms situation. Its main purpose is to tackle the increase in gangsterism and the use of firearms by criminals, and these are found in the large conurbations, the urban areas and the cities. Hon. Members are quite right in feeling that the Bill is directed towards the great built-up areas.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) promised support of the Bill but after that attacked it from almost every possible angle. We are not unsympathetic to his suggestions about the longer barrel, but we realise that we

should have to discuss that with the gun trade. All sorts of people would be involved in the suggestion which he made. I want him to know that it is being looked at—I had better not say that it is being considered—and I will let him know any decision which we reach.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North spoke for the Liberals.

Mr. Bessell: Spoke as a Liberal.

Mr. Thomas: He said that the punishment in this Bill was not sufficient.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am the hon. Member for North Cornwall. The hon. Member to whom reference is being made is the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell).

Mr. Thomas: I can understand the feeling. I both understand and sympathise, because I know Bodmin well. Every year I pay a visit to the hon. Member's lovely constituency when I go to Calling-ton in Cornwall. I know it as well as I know my own division.
I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks that the penalties in the Bill are not sufficient to deter. Many people have made the point tonight that criminals do not buy gun licences. But they know the law. They will know what is in this Measure. I believe, and the Government believe, that the stern penalties meted out here are the necessary deterrent. We hope that they will prove the necessary deterrent to those who resort to the use of guns in crime.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) asked what steps could be taken to stop young hooligans from getting these weapons. It is our hope that the restrictions which will be enforced on firearms dealers and the recommendations of the gun trade itself to firearms dealers as to the precautions which they should take will ensure that it will be much harder for the type of person to whom the hon. and learned Member referred to get these guns.
The conditions of registration for the firearms dealer will interest the House. I will not keep the House long on this, but the gun trade itself has suggested that the trigger guards of weapons on display should be chained together and secured with a padlock; that the weapons should be kept in locked racks; that


rifle bolts should be removed and kept separately; that ammunition should be kept separately from weapons and under lock and key; that glass panels of doors should be covered by steel grilles and windows barred; that display windows should be kept illuminated and premises lit at night; that one member of the staff should be made specifically responsible for security and should see that burglar alarms and so on are in working order and keys safeguarded. These are suggested by the trade, but if any firearms dealer fails to co-operate in the conditions outlined by the chief constable in future, after he has had his gun licence, he can subsequently lose it. He will have the right of appeal to quarter sessions.

Mr. Oakes: This Bill will bring in many dealers who at present are not recognised dealers—people who are dealing in shot guns. Will my hon. Friend make these excellent conditions, which he has outlined, regulations for all sources and not merely the decision of a particular chief constable? Will he make them regulations of this House?

Mr. Thomas: These are suggestions from the gun trade. If the House approves the Bill it will give to chief constables as registration officers the duty of imposing conditions. Clearly, conditions may vary from one police authority to another and from one firearms dealer to another. Much depends on his premises and on local factors. I think that this is a matter which we shall have to leave to the discretion of the chief constables, who will know the situation in their own area.
My right hon. and learned Friend announced an amnesty. I remind the House that when an amnesty was declared in 1961, and when firearms could be brought in by people who were holding them illegally, 70,000 weapons were brought in during the amnesty and 2 million rounds of ammunition. In 1946, immediately after the war, and amnesty brought forward 76,000 weapons and 2½ million rounds of ammunition. We hope that any of those who still have weapons which they are not entitled to hold in their own homes will respond to this amnesty. My right hon. and learned Friend has given an assurance that those weapons which are brought in will not be likely to fall

into the hands of criminals through the open market. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the arrangements of the future amnesty, but at present cannot announce the full details.
A good deal of feeling has centred round the question of the use of air weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir B. Janner) spoke about young people under 17 using airguns. As we have been reminded, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) was responsible for introducing the Airguns and Shotguns Etc., Act, 1962 , and I pay tribute to him, because that Act has undoubtedly been responsible for a reduction in crime. The total number of injuries caused by airguns fell from 946 in 1961–62, before that Measure came into force, to 815 in 1962–63 and 804 in 1963–64. More than 10,00 prosecutions and cautions for offences in the two years since the Act came into operation show that the police have made good use of the powers under that Measure. It is another reminder of the value of Private Members' Bills which reach the Statute Book.
That reminds me of the hon. Member who is hoping to put another Private Member's Bill through all its stages. I have been surprised at the number of hon. Members who have associated the Bill which we are considering with discussions taking place on another Measure going on in Committee upstairs. I have been told that the Bill upstairs is holding up the hon. Gentleman's Bill; the Armed Trespass Bill. Obviously the hon. Members who are holding up that consideration are the hon. Members who are serving on the Committee upstairs—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is a facinating digression, but it has nothing to do with the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Thomas: Of course not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only wish that you had been dealing with those who referred to it earlier.
The attitude of the Government towards the hon. Gentleman's Bill was made clear when it had an unopposed Second Reading. Indeed, it went through on the nod. If there had been hostility on this side of the House towards it, the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know


what would have happened. He would have been here one Friday afternoon after another while hon. Members were shouting "Na" or "Object". The hon. Gentleman's Bill had an unopposed Second Reading, and I hope that we will be able to consider the proposals in it when it reaches its Committee stage. Much as I would like to give a guarantee to him that his Bill will receive the support of the Government, I am the humblest Member of this Administration and I am afraid that I am unable to give him that assurance. However, I hope that his Measure will eventually go into Committee.
I hope that the House is satisfied that the Bill before us can now proceed into Committee. The broad purpose of this Measure is to allow the legitimate use of firearms but to provide severe penalties for criminal use, and when the Bill becomes law, it will still be the case that any person who wishes to possess firearms or ammunition will need a firearms certificate. Inquiries will be made into whether he is a fit and proper person to have a certificate, and conditions will be imposed.
The courts and police are being given considerable powers to intercept and prevent crime being committed. Restriction on the supplies of firearms to criminals is what we are aiming at and I believe that it is the will of the House that law and order should be maintained, both by strengthening the police and by punishing those who seek to hold our society up to ransom. Having said that, I hope that the Measure—which, of course, can be amended—will now proceed to its Committee stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WAR DAMAGE BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

8.35 p.m.

Sir John Foster: On a point of order. Could you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, advise those Members who have shares in the Burmah Oil Company whether it would be in order for them to vote in a Division? You will appreciate that the Bill effects a decision with which hon. Members are concerned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): The hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other Member, must raise that matter at the appropriate moment. The appropriate moment is immediately after a vote has been taken. If any Member wishes to raise the question whether the vote of an hon. Member should be disallowed, he must seek to do so immediately after the vote has been taken, and the Chair will then deal with the matter.

Sir Spencer Summers: Further to that point of order. Are we to understand from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we shall not know whether it is proper to go into the Lobby until after we have been into it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must act on his own responsibility. It is not for the Chair to instruct hon. Members whether they should vote or not. The practice of the House is that the Chair can act in the way which I have indicated only if a vote has been cast which is objected to, and then a ruling will be given. I am advised that this is the traditional way in which this point has been dealt with.

New Clause.—(COMMENCEMENT.)

This Act shall come into force on such date as the Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument appoint, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Bill has caused a great deal of interest and concern. The Financial


Secretary to the Treasury, speaking during the Committee stage, said:
On Second Reading, we discussed its broad principles at great length in what, I think, hon. Members on both sides regarded as a debate of unusually high standard. The Bill raises important questions of principle and very difficult questions of decision for any Government."—[OFFiciAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 17.]
Most of us would agree, I think, with what he said about the Second Reading debate. Certainly, very vigorous views on the Bill were expressed by many of my hon. Friends. On the Government side, also, there were considerable doubts. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) ended his Second Reading speech with this sentence:
The House is compelled, reluctantly and unhappily, to pass the sort of Measure which it would have wished to avoid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1112.]
A number of other speeches were made on Second Reading by hon. Members opposite almost all of which, I think, expressed considerable doubt. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) indicated that he could not support the Second Reading. The mood of the House was that there were important questions of principle and very difficult questions of decision for the Government. This interest and many of these doubts have been further ventilated in the public Press and in public discussion. Nobody can dispute, I think, that the Bill has produced some interesting problems of law, practice and political wisdom.
I certainly accept my share of responsibility—I have never sought to shirk it—for authorising the warning letter of June, 1962, and my share of responsibility for giving instructions for the drafting of the Bill. Both those actions were decisions of the last Government. But I never saw the Bill as drafted until it was presented by the present Government. My colleagues and I never approved its terms, and had we won the General Election it would have been for the Government which was then formed to decide whether and when to introduce the Bill.
We acted as we did because we thought it impossible for us or any Government to accept the proposition that full compensation should be paid for

all war damage. That is not a new idea. In his speech in the House of Lords, Lord Radcliffe referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on damage done during the American Civil War. There was reference to the extent of the damage, to the million men involved, to the duty to deny resources available to the enemy, and to destroy them, ending by saying that the safety of the State in such cases overrode all considerations of private loss. Salus populi suprema lex.
We felt that to be the general proposition, just as our predecessors did and our successors have, but although that may be the general proposition and justifiable on grounds of principle—and certainly on grounds of expediency—the aspect I want to deal with is whether Burmah Oil's claim and other similar claims should fall because of that general proposition.
There are five questions that I want to raise and the first is: should there be an exception to this rule when a Government has taken another line in similar cases? In the Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) read the letter which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General had written to him about claims affecting Sarawak and Brunei. In that letter we read:
The Agreement with the oil companies operating in Sarawak and Brunei was made in 1940—before Japan even came into the war—in pursuance of plans for denial operations the preparation of which had begun as early as 1936. It had been decided then that denial operations should be carried out in these oilfields immediately on the outbreak of a war in the Far East, partly on the grounds that they were thought to be indefensible, and partly on the grounds that the oil obtainable from them would not be required for our own use.
The Attorney-General then goes on to say:
No such plans were made for the oil fields in Burma. I do not think anyone regarded them as vulnerable to anything like the same degree as the oil fields in Sarawak and Brunei; and the oil obtainable from them was most certainly required by the allies so long as it was available to us.
He ends with a reference to compensation:
As compensation for the damage done in the course of the denial operations in the Sarawak and Brunei fields was paid under the Agreement, the Company was precluded


from claiming under the statutory compensation scheme; it was the view, not only of successive Governments here, but also of the Burmah Oil Company itself, that the denial operations in Burma had been carried out in pursuance of rules made under the Defence of Burma Act, 1940, which gave the Company a statutory right to compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 7.]
I had not heard of these matters—or, at least, I do not remember having heard of them when I addressed my own mind to decisions in regard to this issue.
What is the ground for differentiating Burmah Oil's claim from the other claims in Sarawak and Brunei? I must say that it seems to me that the date when denial operations began, or the defensibility of the installations or whether or not the oil would be wanted by us are completely inadequate reasons for drawing a distinction. I fail completely to follow the reasons given in the letter about the date, the defensibility and the oil being wanted as reasons for drawing this distinction. They are inadequate grounds on which to base the distinction, so I must ask: if a clear line of conduct has been adopted in regard to certain claims, should not, in equity, that line of conduct be applied also to similar claims?
The second question is: is it right to take away a common law right—which is what is being done by this Bill—without statutory provision for compensation on some scale? Whether or not the common law right is accepted, in fact it has been the practice to provide statutory compensation. I am told that examples are the Army Act, 1881, the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and the War Damage Acts in the last war. Has there been any provision in this case for what I might call statutory compensation? Can the payment in 1949 be regarded as statutory compensation, or was it purely and simply a rehabilitation grant made in the interests of Burma and not of the company?
8.45 p.m.
Again, the Financial Secretary was quite categorical about that in Committee. He said this:
The main purpose was to assist people who had suffered damage to rehabilitate, and the payment was expressed to be a payment towards rehabilitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 21.]

He went on to say that it was made clear that this was all that the company would get out of the Government. Of course, because at the time of the payment of this sum the Government thought that compensation was claimable from the Government of Burma. That appears in the last sentence of the letter which I have just quoted. That is why I read the final part of it.
The Government and the Burmah Oil Company were then taking the view that the company had a statutory right of compensation under the rules made under the Defence of Burma Act, 1940. That being the view of the Government and of the Burmah Oil Company, it is no wonder that the Government said at that time, "That is all you will get out of us". That seems to be a perfectly reasonable point of view to have taken. Therefore, I think that this is a legitimate question to pose. In this case, has anything which one could describe as statutory compensation, in fact, been paid?
My third question is: if it is accepted that compensation should be paid, even though on a limited scale, what are the consequences if the Executive fails to pass any Measure providing for such compensation? If the Executive is so sure of the law that it delays action, does not pass an Act, because it thinks that it is unnecessary—I think that it was understandable that the Government should not pass an Act when the litigation was going on in Burma—and allows a claimant to pursue his claim until victory in the highest court, does that make any difference?
This is an aspect which has offended many people. If, in 1949, Sir Stafford Cripps had said, "I shall pass an Act of Parliament to say that £4·7 million is all you will get. That is adequate compensation", many people would have accepted that then. What has genuinely bothered people is the business of the Government, of whichever complexion, not taking any action and the matter being allowed to be litigated to victory in the highest court. So my third question is this: is that a consideration which should be taken into account?
My fourth question, the answer to which directly affects timing and, therefore, the purpose behind the new Clause, is this: where are we, at this point of


time, in regard to the Burmah Oil Company's claim? Is it wise, or indeed possible, to form a view about it now? The company is said to have won its case. It is suggested that the Bill will deprive it of the fruits of victory. That is not so at all. All that the company has done is to win on one point of law in a preliminary hearing. Are the other defences valid? I have read the reference in the Attorney-General's letter to one of them. I understand that that is one which is pleaded. Is it valid? At this moment, it is extremely arguable whether we are, in fact, in a position to take a final view about what would happen in this lawsuit.
The fifth point is the serious issue as to the measure of damages if the company gets over the other hurdles. I have already mentioned the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of damages in this way:
I come to the question of damages. As I read the judgments—and they were admittedly obiter dicta—it was clearly foreshadowed that their Lordships might well have said, 'If there is any damage you have got to estimate it at the time the damage was done'. The value of those oil installations was absolutely nil. For what sum would the Burmah Oil Company have sold those oil installations at the moment the damage was done? They were to be occupied by the Japanese in a day or two, and they would have been operated by the Japanese. If the Japanese won the war the company would not see the installations again. If the Japanese lost the war, they would destroy them on their way out. The amount involved in this case, therefore, is very slight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1111.]
I quote that because I think that it puts a serious point very succinctly. We do not know whether it is a valid point, but it is possible that all this is a storm in a teacup.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with that himself in Committee when he ended by saying:
If only 6d. were involved nobody would trouble to legislate about the matter."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 27.]
We just do not know what is the measure of damages, or whether this is a very large claim. I was certainly led to believe at the time when I first addressed my mind to these problems that it was a matter of hundreds of millions of

pounds, as I indicated on Second Reading. We do not know whether it is a large claim, or whether this is quite a minor matter which will be disposed of in some other way.
I do not want to go as far as to say that in no circumstances should a Bill of this sort be introduced. But I do think that it is wrong to pass the Bill now. I suggested on Second Reading that the Government should look at this again and consider whether it is possible to negotiate a settlement. I realise that the Government may be sensitive about withdrawing the Bill. No Government like to have to withdraw a Bill. Therefore, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to help by proposing this new Clause.
The advantage of the new Clause is that it gives time to explore the possibility of disposing of the matter by negotiation and the possibility of other aspects being litigated, the validity of those other defences, and the measure of damages. Where there are strong, almost passionate, feelings of resentment, as there are about this Bill, is it not wiser to avoid the dilemma so well put by the hon. Member for Oldham, West of the House being compelled reluctantly and unhappily to pass the sort of Measure which it would have wished to avoid?
If the Government accept the Clause, I will do all I can to urge my hon. and right hon. Friends, little as I know many of them like the Bill, to give it a Third Reading, but if the Government will not accept the new Clause I shall have to advise them to vote against the Third Reading, and I will certainly join them in the Lobby. The Financial Secretary knows me. I am much too reasonable a person to put this forward in any way as a threat. I am trying to help the Government in a critical situation, because there are wide misgivings about the Bill.
There is a general feeling of disquietude. This is not a party matter. Anybody who listened to the debate on Second Reading will have heard speech after speech from either side of the House indicating anxieties. To give one example, I spoke the other day to Lord McNair, who has a great reputation as an international jurist and a distinguished lawyer in this country, and he told me about


his deep anxieties about the Bill. This is not party feeling at all. There is wide anxiety about it. It would be prudent and statesmanlike of the Government, even if they do not delay the further stages of the Bill, to include this new Clause, which provides for further thought and discussion and for legal decision if necessary.
I beg the Government in the interest of the House as a whole and of the respect in which our judicial system is held, to accept the new Clause.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), I am so genuinely anxious that the Government tonight should accept a very genuine effort to reach a compromise to satisfy consciences on both sides of the House that I do not propose for a moment to reopen arguments about retrospection and the removal of a common law right without compensation and all the other arguments which have been taken so clearly both on Second Reading and in Committee when I had the similar pleasure of facing the Financial Secretary who in due course will reply to this debate.
The Financial Secretary knows how hard I tried to get a rather more, thorough-going Amendment in Committee, without success. But we think that on this occasion with this new Clause we have found a method by which a genuine compromise could be reached which would meet to some extent everybody's point of view and at the same time prevent the Government having to give up altogether tonight something on which they so clearly have set their minds. Many of us, myself included, would have preferred on Amendment tonight which would have gone right to the root of retrospection. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that, if there be talk of sacrifices, there has been considerable sacrifice on this side of the House in not pursuing an Amendment of that kind. We should very much like to have pursued the same line as we did on Second Reading and in Committee, but we have made a genuine attempt here, to give an opportunity for the matter to be resolved.
Our debate in Committee, though very interesting, was quite short. There were

some very good and interesting speeches, all from our side of the Committee, with the exception of that of the Financial Secretary—which was a pity, because we should have liked an expression of view from the benches opposite—but it clearly emerged from our proceedings in Committee that what was really wanted here was that the Bill should not be proceeded with and a great breach made in the law as regards retrospection unless it was absolutely necessary. I am sure the Minister will agree that this was the spirit which moved all the speakers in Committee last week.
In his speech a few moments ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral read one sentence from the Financial Secretary's speech in Committee. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I read the two complete paragraphs not just one sentence, because I think that they have great validity and relevance for the point we are now discussing. The hon. and learned Gentleman was replying to an assertion from our side of the Committee that it was the principle which mattered, not the amount of compensation involved. I shall now read the entire passage, being quite fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman and not picking out bits to suit my argument. He said:
This is an easy argument to deploy"—
that is, the argument based on principle—
that it does not matter whether it is a question of dealing with a sum of 6d. or £100 million since the question is one of principle—and, frankly, I think that this argument is unreal and unrealistic. When we are concerned with large sums of money we have a responsibility as the Government and Parliament has a responsibility as legislators and as those responsible, above all, for the control of public expenditure. We must, therefore, balance up the matter and decide whether it is right to allow compensation to be paid on what would be a large scale which would single out these claimants for a particular and high level of compensation which nobody else who suffered war damage recovered.
Now comes the significant sentence in what follows:
If only 6d. were involved nobody would trouble to legislate about the matter. It is only because there are substantial sums involved that the matter comes before the House of Commons. I make no bones about that and it is not a matter about which one need give any apology."—[OFFIciAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965: c. 27.]


Some of us may, perhaps, doubt the validity or objectivity of that statement, but, nevertheless, I presume that the Minister did not really mean just 6d., but he really meant that something between 6d. and an astronomical sum would convince him that it was not worth passing retrospective legislation in this matter. I am sure that, in reply, he would wish to say that he did not really mean just 6d. but he meant that there would be a sum—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will direct his remarks to the new Clause before us. I fail to see any connection at the moment.

Sir F. Bennett: I am sorry if I transgressed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was following almost exactly the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, much more expertly, that what we want to do is to provide—this was one of the five points he mentioned—an opportunity for negotiation to see whether a reasonable sum could be reached. If a reasonable sum could be reached, taking the very sentence which my right hon. and learned Friend read from the Financial Secretary's speech, it would not be necessary to go on with this legislation on the stand which the Government have already taken. That was the only aspect that I was pursuing in that respect. I thought that it was relevant because the opportunity for negotiation in order that this legislation need not go through was one of the points my right hon. and learned Friend made.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy. I am not objecting to the argument he is advancing. I was objecting to his going over the ground in Committee which bore no relevance to the argument he is now putting.

Sir F. Bennett: I will do my best to keep it relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All I was trying to do was to produce an argument as to why there was a valid case for allowing an opportunity to delay so that negotiations could be entered into. I will not pursue this in view of what you have said, but I would

recall that in Committee I said that this was the worst possible moment to force through this legislation because, although a point of law had been decided, we had no knowledge of what the ultimate sum in damages would be.
On the possibility that that sum would turn out to be 6d., or somewhere between 6d. and the figure up to which the Financial Secretary would agree that it would not be worth legislating about, it would surely be better if we waited and allowed the litigation to proceed. It might turn out to be 6d. or as near approximately to it for the Financial Secretary to secure his conscience and to retain his, if not our, sanctity of principle. Now we have an opportunity to allow a breathing space during which negotiations could take place or, alternatively, the courts could come to a conclusion about damages. The figure might be so small that, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's own words in Committee, he might not feel it worthwhile pursuing the Bill-which he knows, and as every hon. Member knows, is genuinely repugnant to most of us.
It may be, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, that the sum so far involved is an over-riding reason why this Measure should be brought in because of a theoretical sum involved. Here, however, they have a genuine opportunity, because of this Amendment, to see whether it is indeed really necessary to bring in a Measure which we all know that we do not like. In all the circumstances, I endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and thereby get themselves out of a very difficult position, which does not command the deep rooted support of their own supporters and certainly not of the country as a whole.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him during his speech. He was a long time making his point. I was obtuse in seeing that all the preliminary parts of his speech did lead up to the point.

Mr. Edward Gardner: This new Clause is clearly a compromise. I am one of those who accept it as such and would urge the Government to accept it. They must surely


recognise by now that this Bill is one of the most unattractive and unprincipled pieces of legislation ever to come before the House.
It is the view of many of us on this side of the House that this piece of legislation is a complete contempt for justice. It has characteristics most likely to make the hackles of fair-minded people rise. It seeks to confiscate without compensation, to act retrospectively without any reason, and to deny to the successful party the fruits of a judgment by the highest court in the land.
When one comes to view legislation of this kind and to make, as indeed we are making in supporting the Clause, an offer to the Government which would enable a pause in which negotiations could take place to achieve an equitable settlement, then I submit that this is an opportunity which the Government would be very foolish to neglect. We have to bear in mind that the Bill pretends to amend the law for the benefit of all, whereas its true aim—and we all recognise this, as I am sure the Government do—is to reverse a judicial decision to the detriment of one identifiable victim, the Burmah Oil Company.
I am not disturbed by the fact that the claim is made by a large and no doubt prosperous oil company. I see that this may cloud what should be a clear outline of principle for the Government and some of their supporters. I see that if this claim had been made for widows and orphans many hon. Members opposite who now sit silent or hostile would be shouting their support of our opposition to the Bill. Personally, I am not agitated, and I do not believe that many, if any, of my hon. Friends are agitated, by how much the company is claiming. If the Government are alarmed by the size of the claim, they have the opportunity—and this new Clause gives them the opportunity—of negotiating it, and surely they can negotiate a reasonable figure.
There should be no difficulty, bearing in mind the evidential difficulties which the company would have to face if it brought this case to court. Nobody doubts that those difficulties would be formidable. It would have the difficulty, after this period of about 23 years, of distingtuishing with certainty between war damage as such and other damage. In

my view, the actual figure can easily be settled, either by negotiation, or by the court, and the new Clause would give the opportunity either to have a negotiation, or for the case to be heard in court. I do not think that the figure is important, but whether the amount be a penny, a pound, or £1 million, the principle stands intact.
Personally, I do not protest because a large company may lose a great deal of money if the Bill becomes law. I protest, and I believe that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite protest, because of the principle involved. This is a principle which we cannot afford to neglect. If we do neglect it, we do so at our peril.
For those reasons, I implore the Government to consider the valuable advantages of accepting the new Clause so that in the period which will be allowed there will be the opportunity of negotiating, which is the proper way of dealing with this case.

Mr. William Yates: I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will now have reflected with care on his speech in Committee and will have heard the pleas from the Opposition Front Bench and from my hon. Friends who are involved in the law. Tonight, we are considering one of the most fundamental principles affecting our country. I was surprised to note the attitude of the Financial Secretary when he said:
If only 6d. were involved nobody would trouble to legislate about the matter … I make no bones about that and it is not a matter about which one need give an apology."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 27.]
I have never heard such a shameful speech or such shameful words uttered by a member of our country's Executive. This is a total denial of the hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibilities to Parliament and to the country. There has been a very nasty smell about this place over the last three or four weeks.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not trespass into the realms of hygiene. He must speak to the Clause before us. It is not for him merely to animadvert on the Bill. He must link whatever he has to say to the purpose of the Clause under discussion.

Mr. Yates: I quite understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was endeavouring, in my Parliamentary way, to explain that throughout this House and the country an unfortunate aroma was caused by the Bill and that the new Clause was an "Airwick" which was badly needed both in this House and outside. I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend upon bringing it forward for discussion.
When I and other hon. Members spoke on Second Reading, we tried to persuade the Minister to realise that there was serious objection to the Bill on three grounds. First, it was fundamentally objectionable constitutionally; secondly, it was a Bill which the Government should not bring forward; and, thirdly, it would be rejected in another place. The Government took no notice of our warnings. They took no notice in Committee. For that very good reason, the new Clause has now been brought forward for the Government to think about.
I have some sympathy with the Government, because when one puts on old clothes of another Administration and runs around in them they are not too good, and the robes of Nessus occasionally cause injury. Nevertheless, on this occasion a change of raiment is offered by my right hon. and learned Friend which has had all the necessary purification done to it in this wonderful new Clause which we recommend to the House.
I have one objection to the new Clause on the ground of equity. My right hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench asked whether there should not be negotiation to try to settle the matter. I say that fundamentally there should be no negotiation of the matter at all. The processes of law must be gone through first. I may be wrong—I am not a lawyer—but I should like first to see the question of damages assessed in relation to this case.
In Committee, we were told that the damages were likely to be £100 million. Then, somebody said that they were not likely to be as much as that; they might be £50 million, they might be 6d. or they might be nothing at all. What in heaven's name stops the Government from accepting the Clause and allowing the company to proceed at its peril and try

to establish its claim for damages? Thereafter, I agree, occasion might arise when we have to reconsider the matter.
Therefore, on all counts, it is advisable for the Government on this occasion to consider carefully the offer of the new Clause and to accept it with good grace, otherwise they will suffer defeat elsewhere.

9.15 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I did not intend to take part in this debate when I came in, and I do so now for only two minutes to try to highlight one aspect of this discussion which I do not think has been given adequate prominence.
There are two aspects in the Bill—the decision to change the law from what it is deemed to be in the House of Lords, and the decision to make the new law retrospective. I take no exception to the first of those two objects. As I understand it, the main virtue of the new Clause is to see whether it is possible to render unnecessary the objectionable retrospective element in the object of the Bill. I say that because if, despite the additional time obtained, the Government were to accept the new Clause, the retrospective feature was still apparent when the Bill was ultimately brought to the House, I for one would wish again to take exception to it.
I seek only to highlight the chance of changing the law which this new Clause might make possible without the element of retrospection. That is its essential virtue, and it is for that reason that it is possible for some of us, on the one hand, to support it wholeheartedly, while, at the same time, reserving the right, if a Bill comes forward full of retrospection, to take exception to it on that occasion.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The new Clause put forward by the Opposition, and which I support, seems to be the fifth stage in what has been a long and unfolding drama. I congratulate the Opposition on having moved it. I do not think that it goes far enough, but at any rate it is a great improvement.
The first stage was when the Opposition, when they were the Government, fathered the Bill. At the second stage, namely, at the Second Reading, they


at least admitted paternity. At the third stage, they expressed gratitude for adoption. At the fourth stage they tried to bastardise the issue, and now at the fifth stage they have suggested that there should be godparents who should decide when majority has been reached. That, at least, shows some theological improvement and recognition of ancestry.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). I think that the new Clause goes some way, not to improve the Bill but to improve the standing and the reputation of the Government. It will, for me, still have the noxious quality of retrospectivity, and, not only that, but of non-suiting pending litigants, and, therefore, I would support this as a second-best, and hope that there might be more substantial improvements in another place.
What would the new Clause enable the Government to do? It would, I think, be for them a useful measure of political expediency. Legal principle and political expediency are not always inconsistent. They usually are, but not always. I suppose that the clearest case where they were happily combined was the case of Lord Chancellor Brougham, who found that his coach was being pulled by a runaway horse. He tapped on the glass and said, "Coachman, drive into something cheap". He therefore, in one phrase, admitted his legal liability, while seeking to minimise the damages. That seems to me to have been a very happy arrangement.
Supposing, by accepting the new Clause, Her Majesty's Government are able to postpone the operation of the Bill until such time as an affirmative Resolution has been received by both Houses, what will this enable them to seek to do? We know, and they have been very frank about it, that their argument in introducing the Bill is not one of principle. It is one of expense. The Government say, "We are prepared to uphold principles provided that they are not too expensive to uphold. Once they become expensive we will throw them overboard".

Mr. Ivor Richard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorpe: It is no use the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who has been holding a dock brief

throughout these proceedings, indicating that this is not so. It has been admitted by right hon. and learned Members opposite that if only 6d. were involved—if the quantum were small—they would not have found it necessary to do violence to legal principles which at a more expensive level they find it impossible to uphold. They are not worried about principle; they are worried about quantum.
Let us, therefore, discuss the new Clause on the basis of that criterion. I disagree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates). There is nothing dishonourable about successful litigants negotiating out of court. It often happens that a litigant who has been successful in the Queen's Bench Division subsequently finds that the other side has appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal. Negotiations take place and there is a settlement so that the litigant will receive a measure of compensation while, at the same time, minimising the risk of his victory in the first court being reversed in the Court of Appeal. There is nothing shabby or exceptional about negotiations between litigants even after judgment has been given.
Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—or was it the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever)—were correct in saying that the measure of damages was very much much smaller than had been originally suggested. This is very relevant to the new Clause. The House would probably be prepared to admit that when litigants make claims, especially if they are of a liquidated nature, they are not notorious for underestimating the likely damages they will be able to obtain; there is never an unusual financial modesty on the part of such claimants. It may be that the initial figures which have been canvassed are wildly inflated.
It may be, as the hon. Member for Cheetham suggested, that the measure of damages will be very small indeed, in respect of those installations on the market, with the full knowledge that they might be taken by the enemy in a matter of days, or be destroyed by the enemy, or used by him and subsequently destroyed if he were forced to retreat. In such circumstances the quantum of damages might be very small.
Let us suppose that the Government were able to reach a settlement. Let us suppose that, through the instrumentality of an independent assessor, they were able to fix a figure which was cheap enough for them to afford to indulge in principles. Would it not be of great advantage if Her Majesty's Government, by accepting the new Clause, were able to resolve the claims of existing companies without having to introduce legislation which reversed the decision of the House of Lords establishing common law rights? Would not that be of very great benefit for the Government, who claim—certainly with some justification on their record at the time of the Crown Proceedings Act—to believe in the rule of law?
Would it not be of great advantage if, by the operation of the new Clause which provides a chance of negotiation, Her Majesty's Government could resolve the question without having to non-suit litigants, and having to do what happens in some other countries which have not quite the same regard for the rule of law? Would it not be a great advantage if Her Majesty's Government, by adopting the new Clause, were able to settle the matter without giving the appearance of flaunting the judiciary

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): Flouting?

Mr. Thorpe: When I want the right hon. and learned Member to correct me I shall ask for his assistance. I said "flaunting" and I meant it. If he does not know the significance of that I suggest that he consults one of the many psychiatrists in his division, in Harley Street.

Mr. Hogg: I would far rather consult an English dictionary.

Mr. Thorpe: I readily concede that for the right hon. Gentleman that might be far less revealing—and certainly far cheaper.
Would it not be a great advantage to Her Majesty's Government to be able, by adopting this procedure, to resolve these matters without suggesting that the Executive were the final court of appeal in this country, who were always prepared, or who had at least established the precedent of intervening as a final court of appeal, wherever a decision was

unpopular with the Executive or—in the eyes of this Government even worse—expensive in its outcome. Here then, I should have thought, is a formula whereby Her Majesty's Government would have a chance of achieving their objective without doing damage to the principles in which they claim to believe so passionately.
It might fail. It might well be that the outcome would still be too expensive and, therefore, their principles would not rise to the Bill. That is possible, but surely we are talking about what are, after all, very cherished principles and valued in this country; the principle, for example, that, an ordinary man may get legal aid so that he may sue a Government Department to recover damages for the negligence of a Minister's servants. That is a very great thing in this country. However expensive or opprobrious the Minister might regard that judgment, and however expensive it might be to the Treasury, that decision may not be upset save in a superior court of law. That is a very valuable principle in this country.
It may happen that in this case it is an oil company, but the principle remains the same. Surely, if the Government believe passionately in upholding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, they would welcome an opportunity to accept a formula—a product, if they like, of the death-bed conversion of an Opposition, but, at any rate, a formula which should be looked at on its merits—which will enable them to try to see whether they can initiate and produce a result which, in the end, will save them the bill, which they are obviously frightened to have to pay, which will not further involve them in the financial obligations which they deplore, but which may well have the effect of preserving the principles which they claim to cherish.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) opened his speech by commending this new Clause to the House on the grounds that it would do something to restore the reputation of the Government and, to use the hon. Gentleman's analogy, he wanted the Financial Secretary to be a "new Brougham." I do not think that it is that reputation which this new Clause


might do something to restore. I think that it would be the reputation of the House. I—as I imagine are all hon. Members—am far more jealous of the reputation of this House than ever I am of the passing reputation of this Government or that.
It must ha said frankly—it has been said quite frankly—that both Governments have responsibility for this Bill. I came into the Chamber tonight determined, if we should reach that stage, to vote firmly, whatever was said, against the Third Reading. I listened to begin with—let me say with no great enthusiasm—to the arguments in favour of this new Clause. It seemed to me that the more I listened to the arguments the more persuasive they became. I cannot think that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able seriously to resist the arguments which have been put before him.
I am quite certain that the difficulty here lies in the fact that we are dealing not only with a company but with a company dealing in oil. There is something almost psychological about oil companies. It is rather like manufacturers of detergents. They are a class by themselves, and we always consider all those dealing in oil as of limitless wealth and power and, therefore, not demanding of the understanding and sympathy of the House. I believe that if it had been a company dealing in almost any other commodity we would not have had the arguments to which we have listened put forward for a Bill which makes law retrospectively, when the company had used due processes of the law of which we are very proud.
But there is a further reason which has not yet been advanced, which I put to the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Richard: Does the hon. Member apply the same strictures about our action on this side of the House over an oil company to his own party's attitude to the same oil company in 1962, when they intimated their intention of introducing this sort of Bill? Does the same criticism apply then, or is this yet another example of a change of principle with a change of Government?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is most refreshing to have a contribution at last from that side of the House. It is a contribution made without having

listened to what I had to say. Let me spell it out again to the hon. Member in absolutely clear terms. I was the person who, in introducing what I had to say, conceded with absolute frankness that this was a Bill for which both Governments were responsible.

Mr. Richard: But this Government are more responsible?

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the hon. Member will contain himself in patience, what I was saying was that neither Government, in my judgment, would have dared to put forward these views if they had not been dealing with oil companies. That is what I am saying.
Let me add that I believe that if a Conservative Government had sought to discuss these Measures with their own back benches—as Governments do—by contrast with the other side, they would have concluded, particularly if they had a narrow majority, that they could not get it through the House. One of the most disturbing features of this business is that hon. Members opposite have sat supine, in Committee and elsewhere, when we know, in ways which I hardly dare mention in the presence of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), that many of them are very unhappy about it.
I return to the new Clause in adducing a further reason for pressing upon the Government that some measure of delay would be wise. I feel particularly bitter about this as my very modest war service was in this theatre, as was that of other hon. Members. I feel a personal sense of responsibility for the Bill years later as a Member of this House. This is a part of the world where we are being assailed by legislation broadly similar to this, brought in by Governments in those countries. I must not go too far outside the narrow confines of the argument, but I am not the only hon. Member who has constituents of very limited means who are being tragically assailed by legislation in Burma of a very repressive nature.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: On a point of order. May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the hon. Member's remarks should be addressed to the Clause which we are discussing or to the principles of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is that they are mutually involved. I understand that the hon. Member is addressing his argument to the need for an opportunity for reflection before the commencement of the Bill. That is why I think he is in order.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member joined us only very recently or he would have heard exactly this point dealt with earlier in our discussions.
The second example—and I am not going outside the confines of the argument—which I give is that of Ceylon, where many of our constituents are very gravely and grievously affected by legislation broadly of this kind.
What I am saying to the Government is that they have not had sufficient time to weigh up the grievious consequences of what they propose to do. That situation would be helped by adopting precisely this new Clause. It gives, in an honourable way, a period of reflection. I tell the Economic Secretary frankly that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is one of the few people who, after that brilliant speech, could persuade many of us to give the Bill a Third Reading with this new Clause. But I frankly concede that we on this side of the House have a measure of responsibility and this, I venture to suggest, is a way in which both sides of the House can honourably discharge that responsibility.

Mr. Richard: We have had a very interesting discussion so far on the new Clause. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for saying that I had a dock brief. Any time that he has £2 4s. 6d. in his pocket I shall be only too happy to defend him with just as much vigour as I try to defend the Bill.
Among the sponsors of the new Clause there are no fewer than three members of the present Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "The previous Government."] I meant three members of the previous Administration. I cannot even claim that the slip of the tongue was due to my having been in the House before last October. Those three are the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), the right

hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). The other three sponsors are the hon. Members for Torquay (Sir Frederic Bennett), Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).
An interesting point about the six sponsors is that three of them have been firm in their opposition to the Bill. The three back bench Members who appear as sponsors of the new Clause have, throughout, opposed the Bill. I entirely accept that they have opposed it in the House, in Committee and in the columns of the Press on a question of principle. I give them credit for that, and I trust that they will give credit to those on this side of the House who hold opposite views, but who hold them just as much on principle as they hold their views. Those hon. Members have written letters to the Press about it.
I entirely accept that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) opposes the Bill on grounds of principle. I also accept that had the previous Administration introduced the Bill before 15th October, before they moved on to the Opposition benches, some of those hon. Members would have tried to oppose it with just as much vigour as they are trying to oppose this Government during the passage of the Bill.
If I may pay a tribute to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, (Mr. William Yates), on Second Reading he said:
When the Bill was prepared, who by and who knew about it, has been carefully cloaked.
Indeed it has. He continued:
I am certain that very few hon. Members on the back benches knew that the Government were considering or preparing a Bill of this sort. I cannot see, therefore, why we should be blamed for it. But if the Conservative Party was instrumental in producing a Bill of this nature I am sorry…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1197.]
The hon. Member for The Wrekin would have been sorry and no doubt, with that independent turn of mind which I have seen from him in the House since I have been here, and which I read about before I came here, he would have pursued his opposition to his own Government.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, because they were all members of the previous Administration; and certainly, in relation to the first two right hon. and learned Gentlemen, they were members of that Administration when the decision was taken by the previous Government to legislate retrospectively. I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral in his place again, because I would not like to say anything about him or quote what he said on Second Reading without him being present.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Having been a party to the decision to warn the company, I feel that I myself cannot honourably vote against the Second Reading. But, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, I hope that the Government will examine again in more detail what is involved, because, if my information is correct, the sums now at stake are very much smaller than they were thought to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1106.]
The identical argument was vigorously attacked by hon. Members opposite when used by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, namely, that the weight of principle depended on the amount of cash involved—the very argument put by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral on Second Reading. Let us at least have some reciprocity about this part of the argument. The only hon. Member who is entitled to cast that stone is the hon. Member for Devon, North. The amount of weight which he can put behind the stone when he throws it may have some bearing on the direction in which the stone is cast.
9.45 p.m.
If one goes a little further to see the decision which the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral thought that he could not honourably oppose, it is interesting to note that on 13th June, 1962, in the course of the litigation then continuing between the Burmah Oil Company and the Crown, the then Government wrote to the company a somewhat unusual letter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was unusual. There can be no question about that. It was not the sort of letter that one might

consider would normally be sent in the course of litigation of that sort. The letter, which has been greatly attacked by hon. Members, stated:
Her Majesty's Government are, moreover, satisfied that the claim made is not, in any event, one which ought to be met by the British taxpayer.
That was the first sentence of it, as quoted on Second Reading by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary. So the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have sponsored the new Clause presumably decided, and satisfied themselves, at that stage that the claim made was not one which ought—and I emphasise the word "ought"—to be met by the British taxpayer. That was their state of mind when they came to the decision in the second sentence of the letter, which stated:
Her Majesty's Government have accordingly decided, that, in the unlikely event of your company succeeding, legislation would be introduced"—
not "might" or "will be considered" but "would be introduced"—
to indemnify the Crown and its officers, servants, or agents against your company's claim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1097–8.]

Mr. William Yates: The hon. Gentleman has been helping the House as best he can in dealing with this matter of principle, but he must realise that the Government at the time were taking advice from the Treasury and doing their best to consider it, but now, since the matters have been further examined, they have decided that there is a change of circumstances.

Mr. Richard: If the hon. Gentleman really expects us to accept that the advice tendered to the previous Administration was wrong, and that they are entitled to change the view which they so clearly held, it seems to me a curious principle.
As at 13th June, 1962, therefore, the previous Administration—the two right hon. Members opposite—had themselves decided not to attempt to settle this claim by the Burmah Oil Company. On a matter of principle—not on a matter of cash—they decided, first, that the claim ought to be resisted—in fact, it was resisted in the courts—and, secondly, that if the Burmah Oil Company were to win, again as a matter of principle, the Governments, had it still been in power, would have introduced legislation of this sort.
With the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, it is not good enough for him now to say that the Bill was not in draft when he left office, that he did not see the wording of the Bill and, therefore, cannot be bound by what it appears he agreed in June, 1962.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mr. Selwyn Lloyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. He started his speech—I took note of it; no doubt this will be confirmed tomorrow morning in HANSARD—by making an excuse for his change of attitude on the Bill, saying, "I did not see the draft of the Bill. It was not in draft". The Bill as drafted and as laid before the House expresses clearly and unmistakably the decision reached by the previous Administration and which had been expressed by them in their letter of 13th June. We are told that different circumstances exist now from those which existed in June, 1962. I should like in a moment to consider what those different circumstances purport to be.

Mr. Thorpe: If I am right, the hon. Gentleman's argument, so far, has merely been about whether or not Her Majesty's Opposition have any entitlement to criticise Her Majesty's Government for a Bill which, presumably, the House is considering on its merits. May I ask the hon. Gentleman this: is he not sufficiently filled with Christian charity to be able to rejoice at the repentance of not one sinner, but 50 sinners? Is this not capable on its merits of filling his heart with joy? Why does he dash this down? He is given the bread and he treats it like a stone.

Mr. Richard: I dash it down because it is not repentance. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been lured from the path of true virtue by the blandishments of people like the hon. Member for Devon, North. This is a case in which we do not rejoice. We are sorrowful that at one stage right hon. Members opposite decided something as a matter of principle and that now it appears that, because their own back benchers—and perhaps the Liberal Party—do not like that decision, and because they do not like the attitude of mem-

bers of the Front Bench opposite to the Bill, it is convenient, as a matter of principle, I suppose, to change their attitude on the Bill. This does not strike me as a principled attitude.
I thought that I started by saying that I accepted that a large part of the opposition of back bench Members opposite is based on principle. What I do not accept, and what my hon. Friends find it extremely difficult to accept, particularly in view of what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said on Second Reading, is that the change of heart is due to anything more than the fact that some of their hon. Friends on the back benches are getting restive about the way in which they originally approached the Bill. If this be the truth, I will be greatly obliged if somebody on the Opposition Front Bench will say so.
Let me turn now to examine what are alleged to be the differences between now and a few years ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made five points the first of which was: is there an exception in this case if a similar view had been taken in relation to Sarawak or Brunei? That was answered in the Standing Committee, but my answer is that if a claim had existed in common law, the one thing that could not have happened would have been for the companies in Sarawak and Brunei to have found it necessary to have entered into the agreement with the then Government of the United Kingdom. If the claim had existed in common law, the company would not have needed that agreement.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked: is it right to take away a common law right without a statutory compensation for it? On the face of it, that is very attractive. He then asked: what about the £4¾ million? Can one consider that to be statutory compensation? He then went on to convince himself that it could not be because, after all, this was something given to the Burmah Oil Company when it was told to go away to litigate in Burma.
The fact is that the £4¾ million was given to the Burmah Oil Company after the then independent Government of Burma had intimated that they were not prepared to be bound by the war damage legislation introduced in Burma. So it was not a question of giving the company


£4¾ million and then telling it, "You can get a bit more if you apply to the Burma authorities." Precisely the opposite was the case. One of the reasons why the £4¾ million was paid out was that by then it had been found impossible to get statutory compensation from the newly independent Government of Burma.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's third point was about the matter being allowed to go on to litigation, his fourth was that it was still going on, and his fifth point, as I understand it, related to the measure of damages. If this litigation went on to 1961, and to judgment, it went on for one reason and for one reason alone, and that is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were then members of the previous Administration did not see fit to introduce this Bill before the litigation had started.
This matter has, till tonight, been dealt with on both sides as an issue of principle. It seems to us that whereas there are strong arguments—and I accept the strength of the argument on the other side—that it is always wrong to legislate retrospectively, there are equally strong arguments on the other side in favour of the Bill; that it is wrong to treat denial damage in an entirely separate category from any other form of war damage, and that in those circumstances, in order to produce a fair result it is necessary to legislate in this normally abhorent way.
I accept this abhorrence, and I accept that this is the last sort of Bill we would like to produce, but, in the circumstances of this case, it is impossible to arrive at a fair, just and equitable result without going through the lengthy business of passing this Measure through the House in order to reverse the decision of the House of Lords, and thus placing the Burmah Oil Company in exactly the same position as any other litigant.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral was invited on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Devon, North, to repent of his misdeeds. I am sorry that he has thought it necessary, in the circumstances of this case, to change his position to such an extent, and for reasons which, apparently, he has in mind.

Mr. Norman Cole: We are dealing with a quite

extraordinary matter. I hasten to say that I have no interest to declare. I have no interest in the company, I have not been able to make any intervention previously, I was not a member of the Standing Committee, nor did I speak on Second Reading. Nevertheless, since this business first started, I have been most concerned over what we are about to do. To start with, I am concerned about the Title of the Bill. This is not war damage. This was deliberate damage carried out by our own citizens or by members of our Forces to deny these installations to the enemy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it seems to be a little foreign to the new Clause.

Mr. Cole: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I suggest, from my knowledge of the House over the last 14 years, that if the Whips had not been on on Second Reading the Bill would not have been granted a Second Reading. Further, if the Whips were not on tonight the Clause would be accepted, with support from both sides, because I detect support amongst hon. Members opposite. I have enough respect for my friends in another capacity on the other side of the House, as indeed I have for my colleagues on this side, to know that we all think along the same lines. Without in any way wishing to be patronising, I believe that the House should think deeply about what is being done this evening.
The Clause moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is a compromise aimed at trying to find a way out of a desperate situation. The Bill ought never to have come before the House. It ought never to have been initiated or conceived by any Government. This law is wrong. It does not matter whether the amount involved is large or small. Today I was speaking to a man from a foreign country. He asked, "How do you get on when dealing with your constituents?". I said, "I do not mind at all, except when I have to deal with anything on which a legal decision has been given by a court. I regard my function and that of other hon. Members as being to pass laws and to leave the judiciary to carry them out".
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) came very near to a question I want to ask about the Bill. He asked why the Bill was not introduced before the legislation started. I support him in this respect. At least that would have been fair to this company and to others. They would have known where they stood. I want to ask Front Bench speakers on each side this question. Would the Bill ever have been conceived if the company had lost its case? I am not misled by the fact that only one company is mentioned in this connection. I suspect that there are a number of others on the sidelines of the match waiting to see which way this one will go, because their claims are comparable in equity and in amount and have arisen through this form of denial.
We should face the fact that the new Clause is better than the original effort. If the new Clause is not accepted and the Bill goes through in its present form, tonight the House of Commons will, for the first time in its history, indulge in a practice which to my knowledge over long years has been abhorrent to every Member of the House, irrespective of party. It will destroy in one major matter confidence in our legislative system. In future no one who takes any action against the Crown, with or without legal aid, can be certain that there will not be a Bill later to destroy the very rights he has obtained in court. It does not matter whether it is the Burmah Oil Company or anybody else. If the Bill is given a Third Reading, what we shall forfeit is worth far more than the cost of the claim which we might have had to meet from this company.
I say all this not only because of the principle and the question of integrity involved, but because of the example we are supposed to set other legislatures. Other legislatures look to us and I suspect that they will be looking to us at this moment. This is not just a philosophy. It is what has raised this Parliament to its unsurpassed elevation. It has always been sacrosanct that once a litigant has beaten his opponent, whether the opponent be the Crown or a private person, in the courts of this land properly constituted under the legislature, that litigant has won his case. After that, it is for the Government of the day to pass

legislation so that such a thing cannot happen again if they think that such an action is not desirable. But, for the time being, that litigant has won and his position is unassailable.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the War Damage Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Cole: I must not keep the House too long, but I feel most strongly about this, probably more strongly than I can adequately express. I believe that I am expressing the fundamental views of all hon. Members. I heard someone say that this matter can be settled in the Division Lobby. That is not the answer. This is more important than any question of numbers and of Divisions. It goes right to the roots of the sanction under which we legislate. I say without hesitation that even with the new Clause, which is admittedly an improvement, and most certainly with the Bill, we shall be in danger of doing something which may set a very unfortunate precedent for Governments of the future and something which will destroy the confidence of many people in the integrity of Parliament for many years to come, long after we have passed from the scene of things which we will much regret having done.
I appeal to the Government and to my hon. and right hon. Friends that we may somehow find a way of avoiding such a situation. I have no detailed information whether the damage is great or small, but if the Government feel that they can accept the new Clause they will at least provide a breathing space and it may be possible for all concerned to negotiate and find some way or other round the present difficulty. We have seen the House in the past get itself into a complicated position and afterwards by some magic peculiar to the British way of compromise find a way out. I hope that this will happen in this case.
Otherwise, I look forward with some trepidation to the day when the Bill—and I suspect that the word "Bill" in this context has more than one meaning—will become an Act. I hope that it never


will and that, based on the temporary hiatus provided by the new Clause, integrity will triumph and the good name and reputation of the House and indeed of the Executive—both of this Government and the last—will remain. I hope that people will never point to us and say, "You did something when you went back because you did not like the decisions of various courts". This is the thing which hits at most of us to our very hearts. We do not like the fact that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very nearly towards a Third Reading speech on the Bill.

Mr. Cole: I am sorry, but I am coming to the end of my speech and I am sure the House will be glad of that. What I am trying to say as an ordinary every-day person is that we do not like the State using the whole power of the House to countermand something which the court has said it should do and which it does not want to do. This is the whole nub of the matter. I wish that we had never been called upon to make a decision like this. For my part, I shall vote for the new Clause and I shall vote against the Third Reading, irrespective of what any of my hon. and right hon. Friends may do.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I shall not detain the House long at this hour, but, having heard the speeches from the benches opposite, I must say that, if the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) is shocked by the terms of the Bill, I confess myself thoroughly shocked by what I regard as a shabby attempt at compromise contained in the new Clause. I am amazed to hear hon. Members who are parading their principles in regard to the Bill say that they are prepared to support a Clause of this kind which does nothing whatever to salve their principles.
It is pleasant, no doubt, to hear the Opposition showing their tender solicitude for the conscience of the Government Front Bench, but it was not, in fact, for the conscience of the Government Front Bench that they were showing their solicitude. What they have been attempting to do—I put this quite frankly and plainly—is to get their own Front Bench, and the right hon.

and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in particular, off the hook. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here now, but I will tell the House why I say that.
On Second Reading, as has already been said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Having been a party to the decision to warn the company, I feel that I myself cannot honourably vote against the Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1106.]
That was when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. Today, it comes before the House on Third Reading in exactly the same state as it was then. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not Third Reading yet."] How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who could not find it in his conscience honourably to vote in favour of the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, find it in accordance with his conscience to do that to the same Bill unamended on Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are not on the Third Reading.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But what we are considering is the Bill as it comes back from the Committee, and we are discussing a Clause which it is proposed should be inserted in order to avoid that difficulty when we come to the Third Reading. This is the last chance the House will have to amend the Bill before it reaches that stage.
Let us see what the new Clause does and to what extent, if at all, it does anything to salve these matters of honour. If the Bill is passed into law with the Clause now proposed, it will become law with the second part of Clause 1 in it, that is, with the retrospective part to which such objection in principle has been taken by hon. Members opposite. All that the Clause will do will be to defer for a period the operation of what will then be an Act embodying the principle of retrospection which hon. Members opposite say is so abhorrent. How can that possibly salve the consciences of this Front Bench or of right hon. and hon. Members opposite?
What is the purpose of the deferment suggested? Two purposes have been adumbrated. One is to negotiate, but to


negotiate holding the pistol of what will then be an Act in the Government's hands, saying to the Burmah Oil Company, "Unless you accept our terms, we shall put this into effect although it is abhorrent to do it retrospectively". That is what is suggested by some hon. Members.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates)—I am sorry that he is not here to give an answer himself—said that he would not negotiate. What would he do? What he said, in effect, was that we should wait and see. He said that in relation to the question of whether the courts would ultimately decide that damages should be small or that they should be large. He said that the litigation should continue, the courts allowed to decide the damages and then we could decide whether to put the Act into operation.
I understood him to mean, in other words, that if the damages proved to be exceptionally large we should put the Bill into effect, but, that if they turned out to be minimal we need not bother. This was the very honourable Member who said how disgraceful it was that the Financial Secretary should say on Second Reading that it would be a very different situation if the damages were small from the situation if they were to be very large.
The whole principle behind this attempt at delay is anathema. It is a shabby compromise. It does not get the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral off the hook at all, because it would allow a Bill to go through and become law which hon. Members opposite regard as abhorrent in principle. It would provide a short period of delay in which the whole thing could be covered up. I would regard it, even if I considered the principle of the Bill as bad, as far worse to support the new Clause than the Bill itself.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. and learned Member for Deptford has accused some of us of corroding our principles.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: It was the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin.)

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry. I meant the brother of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am afraid that my brother is not learned.

Mr. Jenkin: I trust that the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will find that an advantage on this Bill.
The point at issue was put very well by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) who said that the real mischief of the Bill is that it sets up Parliament as the final court of appeal from the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) talked about the corrosion of principles. I think that the most frightening thought about the introduction of the Bill is that the Government should have been able to rely blandly on the fact that 100, 200 or 300, whatever it may be, Socialist Members will tramp faithfully through the Lobbies in support of the Bill.

Mr. Richard: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us whether his party has the Whips on tonight?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. There are many interesting side pieces coming into this debate. I do not think that the question of the Whips arises on this Clause.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has the unique distinction of being, as far as I know, the only member of the Government side who has consistently and without qualms supported the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I hope that he gets the corn he has earned.
The case for the new Clause put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), and one must wholeheartedly agree with this, is that, in view of what has emerged during the passage of the Bill, it would be quite wrong for it to take effect without there being what one might call a locus poenitentiae to enable second thoughts to be made, a delay so that even if the Bill reached the Statute Book, there is time for the Government at the very least to negotiate, as they have consistently refused to do, with the claimant and to reach a just settlement.
Since the Bill was introduced, a number of new facts of cardinal importance have come to light, and in this context I refer particularly to the treatment of a number of other oil companies with installations in the Far East and about which information came in a letter to me from the Attorney-General.
These facts have been outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend and I need not repeat them, except to say that in the letter it was sought to justify a distinction between the oil companies in Sarawak and Brunei on the one hand, and the oil companies in Burma on the other, on the ground that in the former case the necessity for denial damage was foreseen and an agreement consequently made with the companies, agreeing that they should destroy their installations in return for compensation.
The installations were destroyed on the very outbreak of war, as soon as Pearl Harbour was attacked; whereas in Burma no necessity was foreseen and so no agreement was made and where the installations were not destroyed in order to deny them to the enemy until almost the very day when the enemy arrived on the site; with the result that the oil companies in Sarawak and Brunei got their compensation, while the oil companies in Burma were refused.
The Government's argument, set out in the Attorney-General's letter and read in Committee by the Financial Secretary and which I am therefore entitled to regard as the main point of the Government's argument for rebutting our case, was twofold. The first argument was broadly one of fact, although it may be mixed fact and law. It was that the Burmah Company's rights arose not under the common law, but under the Defence of Burma Act, 1940, an Act of the Burma Legislature, that the company had a statutory right to compensation and that, although it had pursued that statutory right in the Burmese courts, it had brought them little joy.
It is argued that this gives no common law right to the company to compensation in the United Kingdom. The Government go on to say by way of justification that the United Kingdom Government contributed to all the claimants in this case the same sum which it would have contributed if

Burma had remained a dependent territory, and that the company has had its share of that sum.
The second argument is that there was no common law right because otherwise why was an agreement necessary? The agreement was necessary because there was no common law right, runs the argument. The Government entirely leave out of account the fact that the House of Lords has decided that there is a common law right, but even so the argument—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to link his argument with the Amendment before us. He is now making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Jenkin: My argument is directed to the point that these facts about other oil companies have come to light since Second Reading. This is all directed to the validity of a Clause which is designed to give a locus poenitentiae, as I put it. The argument was that because of the agreement there was no common law right. One might as well argue that because in Burma there was no agreement, there must have been a common law right. Both arguments are equally silly.
On the first argument on this point about the Defence of Burma Act, 1940, the company has never agreed that its rights arose under that Act. This was made clear throughout the preliminary proceedings in the courts in this country. Even at an early stage—this goes to the merits of the case and the reason why the Government should have this pause to negotiate or to allow the case to continue—in the negotiations with the Government in 1947 the company all along recognised that it did not have a claim under the Burma legislation but that it might well have a claim under United Kingdom law.
I should like to refer to a Minute of the Burma Office dated 28th October, 1947, which sets out the discussions which those interests had with the Government, and particularly with the late Sir Stafford Cripps.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am trying to be fair to the hon. Member. He must not merely argue the case of the Burmah Oil Company versus the


Government. He must produce arguments in favour of the Clause which he is supporting.

Mr. Jenkin: I defer to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to make the point that justice requires the Government to have time to look at the case again, time if necessary to allow the company to finish its legislation and time if necessary to negotiate. That is the justification for introducing a Clause of this nature at this stage. All these facts have come to light since the Bill was introduced. But perhaps I do not need to labour the point.
The substance of the matter is that compensation, as we now know, was paid to all the other oil companies and that there is really no difference between them and the company in Burma. It cannot make a difference that in one case there is a common law right, but that in the other there was an agreement, that in one case the oil was needed and in the other case that it was not, and that in one case the damage was done on the outbreak of war and in the other case it was done when the enemy was at the gates. There is a cause of action.
The Government should let the company pursue its case in the courts. It should be entitled to prove the facts

on which it relies, and that it is entitled to judgment. Above all, the compensation should be quantified. Nothing would be lost. It would still be open to the Government, if the Bill reaches the Statute Book, to defeat the company's claim, but, at least, they would do so with a full knowledge of the facts and of the amount of money involved. Let them, however, pay up and clear the outstanding cases and without the retrospective element bring the Bill into effect. This would seem to be a sensible, honourable and constitutional way of dealing with this difficult problem. It would avoid the embarrassment to which many hon. Members have referred.
If the Bill is passed without the new Clause, it will be another nail in the coffin of the rule of law. It would be a further undesirable precedent to be added to the existing list of undesirable precedents and, thereby, a further bad example to younger territories which are only too eager to seize upon bad precedents which they can use as examples.
If it is still legitimate to quote Virgil in this House, facilis descensus Averni, which can be roughly, but not inaccurately, translated as "Retrospective legislation is a damned slippery slope". Let the House dig its heels in and say that it will have no more of it.

Mr. Harold Lever: If retrospection is a damned slippery slope, hon. Gentlemen opposite have fallen flat on their faces in the mud on this occasion. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that the Government could only have drawn up the Bill because of the servile manner in which they expected their supporters to vote in the Lobby for an obnoxious Bill. I am tempted to ask on what assumption the hon. Gentleman thinks the Conservative Government, who drafted the Bill before we came into office, drew it up.
We are assured, of course, with many bold words from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that so profound is the attachment of hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite to the fundamental principles assaulted by the Bill that, even if their own Government had been in office, they would, by the mighty weight of their moral fervour and determination, have revolted against the Government and compelled them to withdraw it.
I find it difficult to believe that any such heroic moral exercise would be undertaken, in the light of their be-haviour in relation to the new Clause, because it accepts everything that is devastating, contemptible and unsavoury about which complaint has been made on both sides of the House, and it seems impossible to suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not got the guts to stand up for their rights in opposition, would have shown more dignity and courage, had their leaders been in Government, than the relatively harmless opposition that is available to them today.
The new Clause does nothing to mitigate or to minimise in any way the evils of the Bill if it is held that the Bill is an evil one. I agree in detail with what was analytically and carefully said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). I go further. It is said that negotiation can take place. I can only echo the words used by my hon. and learned Friend, that it is bordering on extortion for a Government to negotiate with a subject under the threat of an Act already passed, of a confiscatory and retrospective character, which one holds over

the subject's head as one conducts the negotiations.
What sort of moral principle are hon. Gentlemen opposite defending? Is it the right of the Government to pass a confiscatory Bill, but not put it into effect until they have negotiated the hapless citizen, in so-called free negotiations, into parting with his rights, with the obvious implication that if he does not do so voluntarily he will have them confiscated by an Order in Council under the Act which has been passed?
It has also been suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that the Government would have time for reflection. This is an interesting argument to address to the House after the moral fervour which we went through on Second Reading, as I thought with sincerity, by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. Reflection for what? As to whether to oppress the subject, or not to oppress him? If one holds the view that it is an oppressive, unfair, and unjust Bill, what do the Government want it for? For what do they need time to reflect? As to whether to confiscate subject's property, or, after all, to decide not to do so?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Time to reflect what weight should be given to the views expressed by hon. Members during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Lever: It is all right for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He does not claim to have any serious moral principles about the Bill. I am not rebuking him. He is entitled to his views, as much as anybody else is to his. I made by views on the Bill clear during the Second Reading debate, and so, I thought, did many hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Why should they support the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Not to get him off the hook, but to give some semblance of repentance to a man who, on this issue, has forfeited the right to lead his party, and forfeited the right to advise the House. The best thing that he can do is to be silent, abstain, and apologise for having been responsible for the Bill in the first place. By attempting to mislead his followers he is not making amends. By proposing this obnoxious


new Clause he cannot wipe out the stain of what was originally proposed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has my personal esteem, and that of the House, but in this case he is the fox who has lost his tail, and in this somewhat complex manner is seeking to persuade the small handful of foxes on the benches opposite, still endowed with tails, to part with them by supporting the new Clause. I hope that whatever views hon. Members have about the Bill, the House will reject the new Clause with contempt.

10.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), who is no longer with us, described the new Clause very accurately as a compromise. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silk in) described it as a shabby compromise. I suggest that that description is equally accurate.
Let us get clear between whom it is a compromise. It is a compromise between the Front Bench opposite and the back benches opposite—between those who dislike the Bill completely in its retrospective aspects, and would not want to see any retrospectivity at all—the back bench Members opposite—and those who take the view that it is a quite proper retrospective Measure, which is the view certainly held by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), for I have not heard him resile from it, although he nevertheless wants to reach a compromise with his backbench hon. Friends who have been opposing the Bill so vigorously.
The only interesting arguments we have heard have been those which have been directed, once again, to the major questions which were discussed in the Second Reading debate, and upstairs in Committee, namely, the deep and difficult question of principle involved whenever one is considering any proposal for retrospective legislation.
Before dealing with this point let me turn to the Clause itself. What is suggested by it is that we should have a pause. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral would have known better than to make further suggestions on that basis. His

last one was somewhat disastrous. What does he want the pause for? He said that he wants it for further litigation, and for further negotiation. What is the further litigation to be for?
Surely one thing is quite clear, namely, that in the stage that has been reached in connection with these claims any self-respecting Government must make up their mind now, at this stage—indeed, they might have made their mind up earlier, at the time of the previous Government—what attitude they are proposing to adopt to these claims; whether they are proposing to allow them and to meet them in full, whatever the decisions of the courts, or whether they are to act in accordance with the warning given by the previous Government and by the Treasury Solicitor, when the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken full responsibility tonight for the letter which warned the claimants that if they proceeded to litigate and succeeded in establishing the principle they were contending for, legislation would be passed to indemnify the Crown. This legislation is being brought forward to implement the warning contained in that letter. Clearly, the Goverment must decide what attitude they propose to take—whether they propose to implement that warning or not—and if they think it is a proper course they must bring forward a Bill, as we have done, to indemnify the Crown in respect of these claims.
What are we to allow the litigation to proceed for? What are we to negotiate about? It has been suggested that we should negotiate to reach a fair settlement. The case for the Crown—and I speak for the Crown throughout the period of successive Governments—is and has been, since 1948, that we have negotiated, and have negotiated a fair settlement, under which the Burma claimants were paid over £10 million, of which one group of claimants—the Burmah Oil Company, upon whom hon. Members opposite seem to have concentrated their solicitude, although there are eight other claimants—have received £4¾ million. That was considered then to be a very fair offer and was accepted by the company at the time. It was considered in the—

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Why did the late Sir Stafford Cripps advise the Burmah Oil Company to sue the Burma Government?

Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the debate on Second Reading, he will find that we went over all these matters fully.
The position, if he wants me to state it again—and I shall try to state it shortly—is that the view of the Crown throughout has been that the action which resulted in the denial damage, and which was taken by the military commanders, was action which, under the Burma rules, would entitle the Burmah claimants to compensation. When the new independent Government came into power in Burma, they repudiated the Burma rules and refused to accept any obligations under them.
The result was that these claims, which our Government took the view could quite properly be made before the Burmese courts, were rejected. That is the reason why that advice was given. The point is that Her Majesty's Government recognised not a legal but a moral obligatiol towards compensation for—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was compensation. Hon. Members seem to think that moneys paid with a view to rehabilitation to help the company to rebuild is not compensation. Of course it was compensation; it was paid with a view to rehabilitation. It was accepted as such, and, I understand, it was used by the company as such. If an hon. Member's house were destroyed by a bomb and he was paid, by the Government, money to rebuild the house, would he say that it was not compensation? Of course it is. It is a form of compensation.
Her Majesty's Government paid £4¾ million to the Burmah claimants. That was the position when those moneys were paid in 1948. It was during the period of the previous Administration that the Burmah claimants approached the Government again—after the rejection of their claims by the Government of Burma—to see whether they could obtain further compensation from the British Government. When they were Chancellor of the Exchequer, both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Butler stood by the previous action which had

been taken, and said that that was the full amount of compensation—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: If the sum of which the Financial Secretary has just spoken was compensation, how does he explain the plain fact that every judge, in his judgment, whether accepting the Burmah case or rejecting it, whether in the majority or in the minority, said that there ought to be compensation? What the hostile judges said was that there was no remedy at common law in this set of circumstances. Why do the Government say that there ought to be compensation, when there already was some?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacDermot: I think that all those hon. Gentlemen who growl, "Hear, hear" so forcefully would do better to read the judgments to which the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) refers. The answer is that in saying that there was no legal claim, the learned judges said that they considered that there was a moral claim to compensation. It is precisely because Her Majesty's Government share that view that £4¾ million has been paid to the claimants. It was paid as a moral claim and purely on a moral basis. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the judgment, they would see that the learned judges did not say that there was a moral claim to more than £4¾ million. What they said was that it must be for the Government of the day, who are responsible for the Exchequer, to decide what can and should be afforded. They never suggested and never said that there was a moral claim to full compensation for common law damages. This is the basic question on which I thought practically all hon. Members were agreed.

Sir S. Summers: How can the hon. Gentleman justify his statement tonight that this is compensation when, as reported in column 1100 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
…I have said already that it was made clear at the time that it was not being paid as compensation…".

Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would read accurately what I said, which was:
I have made clear in what I have said already that it was made clear at the time that it was not being paid as compensation, but as rehabilitation.


In that debate the hon. Member had interrupted to ask whether it was paid as compensation and I said, "No, it was paid as rehabilitation". I was never pressed on the point, but I have made it clear in every speech I have made on the subject that a payment as rehabilitation is a form of compensation.

Sir John Foster: Sir John Foster (Northwich) rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I will not give way at the moment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Financial Secretary does not give way, the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) must sit down.

Mr. MacDermot: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. and learned Member when I have finished dealing with the interruption which was made previously. I cannot deal with more than one at once. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. and learned Member cannot even deal with one."] The distinction which I was making was between compensation in the sense of full compensation and rehabilitation in the sense of limited compensation to help the company to rehabilitate itself. Would it convince hon. Members more to bear in mind that the Burmah Oil Company has apparently made it plain—although it has not put it in its pleadings—that it considers that it should give credit for the £4¾ million which it has received by way of rehabilitation against any claim which may be made?
I gather that some hon. Members say that it was an ex gratia payment. But any hon. Members opposite who are lawyers will find it very difficult to conceive, if it came to an award of damages being made to the company in respect of these claims, that the court itself would not deduct the sums paid by way of rehabilitation.

Sir J. Foster: As reported in column 1096 of the OFFICIAL REPORT the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
After a series of discussions in which it was made clear to Burmah claimants that any sum offered would be for rehabilitation rather than for compensation and assessed on that basis a total of £10 million was offered as a final settlement.
He said there that it was not compensation.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. Has whether it is compensation or rehabilitation anything to do with the new Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must address the House only on points of order. That was a point of argument.

Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Member looks at the top of the column from which he is quoting he will see that I made the point which I made a moment ago:
and, secondly, that the object was to provide for rehabilitation rather than for full compensation".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1096–1100.]
That is what I referred to, as reported at the foot of that column, which the hon. and learned Member quoted.
I return to the question of what it is proposed that we should negotiate about. Who is to determine what is to be the fair contribution which can be made from the Exchequer towards the damage which was suffered by the oil company? [An HON. MEMBER: "The official referee."] I am told, "The official referee". On what basis? The level of compensation must be determined by the Government, who are responsible for the Exchequer, unless we say that we should pay full compensation.
That is something which could be assessed, but unless there is some statutory scheme of compensation which could be enforced by the courts, the only alternative is to make a payment according to what the nation can afford; and that is something which must be, and was, determined by the Government of the day.
10.45 p.m.
I suggest, therefore, that plainly at this stage either we have to stand by the payment we made, or say, "We will pay full compensation". However, I cannot see how we could reopen the matter now, at this stage, and start negotiating. It might be that a Government might take the view—which we do not—that we were wrong in the original amount paid, the £10 million to the Burmah claimants, and that another £4 million should be paid. This was not the view of the Government in 1948.
It was not the view of Mr. Macmillan when he was approached. It was not


the view of Mr. Butler when he was approached. It was not the view of the Government at the time of the litigation and at the time the letter was written when the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government stood by their payment and said, "This is what we consider to be a fair and proper contribution for Her Majesty's Government to make towards the compensation of the Burma companies."
Then, if it is to be further litigation, what is the further litigation to be about? Are we to go on and litigate to see if the Crown is successful in defeating the Burmah claimants, which might happen if we continued to litigate? Are there further legal arguments by which the claimants might be defeated? It might be found on assessment of damages that the value of the claims was nil; that the Japanese would have destroyed the installations in any event. What do hon. Members suggest should happen then? Should the Burmah Oil Company repay the £4¾ million it has received?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. MacDermot: What do hon. Members suggest?

Mr. Edward Gardner: If that is to be so and if these are the possibilities—if not the probabilities—what have the Government to fear? Why are they passing this legislation? Why not have it tried out in the courts and so satisfy everybody?

Mr. MacDermot: I will follow the argument through. That is one possible result. But suppose that the courts say, "We consider that the full compensation should be, say, £10 million, of which they have had £4¾ million, and we award judgment for £5¼ million now". What happens then? Do Her Majesty's Government then decide that this is a sum which we are prepared to pay, or do we say we are not prepared to pay it? Suppose, further, that the damages awarded, including interest—which has been claimed—amount to £60 million? What then?
Hon. Members must consider these points. I hear an hon. Member opposite asking, "Why suppose"? It has been suggested that we have a pause. I am trying to investigate what might be the

possible alternative results of this pause. To where would it lead? I suggest that it would lead to an impossible situation because, at the end of the pause, the Government would still be confronted with having to make a decision—a decision which we have had the courage to make now and which we now invite the House to make. It is to decide whether the contribution of £10 million, which was made to the Burmah claimants, was a fair, sufficient, and proper contribution for Her Majesty's Government to have made. If not, we should pay more, whatever the courts say. What do hon. Members consider?

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked two questions, to which, presumably, he is seeking answers. His first was who will assess the damages, or how will they be assessed? He now agrees that it would be perfectly possible for the courts to continue this ligitation and to assess the damages. Presumably, therefore, his first question has been answered by himself. When he moved to his second question—as to the quantum of the damages; that they might be £1 million, £10 million or £60 million—surely he is well aware—

Mr. MacDermot: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What remedy have I if I give way to an hon. Member to ask a question and find that instead he is making a second speech?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): An intervention is purely for clarification and should be kept brief.

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe rose—

Mr. MacDermot: Mr. MacDermot rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman did give way.

Mr. Thorpe: One final question—

Mr. MacDermot: On a point of order—

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Mr. MacDermot.

Mr. MacDermot: I gave way to be asked a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.


I have not yet been asked a question. Do I have to give way indefinitely, in the hope that a question may come?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that a question was being asked. I did ask the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to make it brief.

Mr. Thorpe: If I am given the opportunity, I will do so.
Can I not ask the Financial Secretary this question? Surely it is possible for the likely damages to be assessed in just the same way as any counsel in private practice is asked to assess what the likely quantum of damages is likely to be if the matter is litigated. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to do that?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman has not been following the argument in support of the Clause, which is not that we should have a pause in order to assess, and try to negotiate, what damages the court might award on the basis of full compensation but, I understand, something less than that; some fair sum which Her Majesty's Government should pay now, having already, years ago, paid a total of over £10 million to the Burmese claimants. If that were the argument, it is that we should abandon the retrospectivity, that we should accept the claims and pay in full. We have already on Second Reading stated our reasons, and the House has accepted them, for believing that it is not proper, and not fair or just, looking at the total responsibilities of the Government in respect of war damage, to single out these claimants for this favoured and special treatment.
This suggestion of negotiation under the threat that retrospective legislation would still be possible at the end of the day would be a most extraordinary form of negotiation. I have heard of the suggestion in negotiations that there should be pistols for two and coffee for one, but this seems to be a suggestion of coffee for two and a pistol for one, with the pistol held by Her Majesty's Government at the head of the Burmese claimants. I should have thought that to be an extremely undignified posture for Her Majesty's Government to be asked to adopt.
We either accept these as proper claims which we should honour and for which the taxpayer should pay or, as was said by the right hon and learned Member for Wirral on Second Reading, alternatively, we should take the view that these are not claims that are justified in equity or that the taxpayer should be expected to honour.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Financial Secretary has set out two quite clear alternatives, but can he explain how he made the third—that if the damages turned out to be 6d., he would drop the Bill?

Mr. MacDermot: I did not say that if the damages turned out to be 6d. I would drop the Bill. That remark has been grossly distorted, as I thought it probably would be. I never said, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) suggested, that my argument was that if the amount at stake was only 6d. we would not legislate, and that, therefore, we were not concerned with principle. The fact that we would not legislate if there was only 6d. involved does not give us the proposition that if there is £100 million involved it is, therefore, wrong to legislate, or that there is no question of principle involved.
We have said from start to finish that we consider this to be one of the rare exceptions in which it is proper to make retrospective legislation. I cannot develop that without going over the whole of my Second Reading speech, and I think that the House has already reached the stage where it wishes to reach a conclusion on the matter.
Let me briefly answer the specific question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral. The distinction between this claim and the Sarawak and Brunei claims is quite clear. It is that an agreement had been reached with the oil companies in the Sarawak and Brunei cases before even the destruction took place and that damages were paid pursuant to a contract. He at least would appreciate the distinction involved there.
The sum paid to those companies was less than half the amount that is being paid to the Burmah oil claimants in this case. They received £2¼ million whereas the Burmah claimants have received £4¾ million. Furthermore, because they had been paid their compensation pursuant to the contract they were disentitled to


further compensation under the war damage scheme which applied to that part of the Far East.
The right hon. and learned Member for The Wirral asked if it was right to take away the common law right that is sought to be established here without statutory compensation. I make two answers to that. First, the compensation has already been paid here before the right was established. I know that hon. Members do not like to be reminded that it was compensation and it was £4¾ million, but that is the fact.
11.0 p.m.
Secondly, I remind hon. Members of the provisions of the Indemnity Act, 1920. When I sought to justify this Bill on the basis that it was in effect a Bill of Indemnity that argument was met with scorn, particularly from the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). I have such respect for the hon. and learned Member's knowledge that I have looked up the provisions of the Act to see what effect they would have had on this claim.
The result if such an Act had been passed after the last war would have been that the Burmah claimants would not have been entitled to a penny piece and could not have succeeded on this claim before the House of Lords because of the provisions of the Act that
No action or other legal proceeding whatsoever, whether civil or criminal, shall be instituted in any court of law for or on account of or in respect of any act, matter or thing done, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, during the war before the passing of this Act, if done in good faith, and done or purported to be done in the execution of his duty or for the defence of the realm or the public safety…
That was expressly made retrospective so as to affect proceedings instituted before the passing of the Act. But hon. Members say, "Ah, there were provisions under that Act for a scheme of compensation and people were not being deprived of their rights without compensation." That only applied to claimants who suffered damage within the United Kingdom. People who suffered damage outside the United Kingdom were not entitled to any statutory compensation at all, and that is my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for The Wirral.

Sir J. Foster: The Financial Secretary has forgotten that the Act of Indemnity

was indemnifying against acts which otherwise would be wrongful. The Act of Indemnity of 1920 was not concerned with damage caused by lawful acts because in one's pleadings one does not say that "X did this wrongfully and therefore I am entitled to damage" but says "This was done by the Government and it entitles me to damage under common law because of the principle of denial damage."

Mr. MaeDermot: I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to look again at the Act. He will find that it is in no way restricted to claims in respect of unlawful acts. I have read the words and I invite him to look at them in HANSARD if not in the statute itself. He will see that they are completely wide. Of course at that time—and this is another of my major arguments—it was generally thought that there was no right to compensation in respect of lawful acts. That does not alter the fact that the Act of Indemnity was sufficiently widely drawn to have excluded such action even if someone had brought it.

Mr. Longden: Does not the Financial Secretary admit that the difference here is that the Act which he cites sought to deprive a citizen of a potential right whereas this Bill seeks to deprive the citizen of a right given by the highest court of the land?

Mr. MacDermot: I turn now to that argument. It has been suggested that whereas it would be right to pass retrospective legislation to defeat a claim which had not actually been made, and I think that it is accepted that it would have been right even if a writ had been issued but no proceedings had been started before the court—and I assume that this is thought right in respect of the other eight claimants—nevertheless the Burmah Oil Company is in a different position because it has obtained judgment. Here, hon. Members mistake what the true situation is, which is that the company has not obtained judgment. It has not obtained final judgment. A decision has been given on a preliminary point of law covering one—I concede, a major one—of the legal arguments involved in the case, but the company has not obtained final judgment. It is in exactly the same position as the eight


other claimants, namely, that a legal right has been established, and, provided that the company can bring itself within the ambit of facts to establish its claim, it would be entitled to judgment. The Burmah Oil claimants here are not in any different position from that of the other people who have already started proceedings but have not yet obtained judgment.

Mr. Longden: They are in a very different position in that the others have not got a judgment.

Mr. MacDermot: Neither has the Burmah Oil Company.

Mr. Longden: Yes, it has.

Mr. MacDermot: With respect, it has not. If it has a judgment, I invite the company to sue upon it. But, in fact, it cannot.

Mr. Longden: The company has a judgment which states that it has a right to claim compensation.

Mr. MacDermot: It has no judgment that it has a right to compensation. All that has been established is the legal principle that, if certain facts alleged by the company are proved, then it would be entitled to compensation.
If hon. Members are worried about this, let me remind them of some precedents in previous decisions of the House in similar circumstances. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) reminded us of the introduction of the Truck Act, 1940. A Mr. Pratt had successfully contended that his employers were in breach of the Truck Acts in supplying him with food as part of his wages, and he recovered about £400 damages. That decision of the House of Lords was given in February, 1940. On 18th April, 1940, the Home Secretary announced that a Bill would be introduced retrospectively making the employer's practice lawful, and he justified the retrospectivity by a Home Office Circular of the 19th century which had expressed the view that the practice was lawful. At the time of his statement, there was a large number of actions which had already been started before the courts. In July, 1940, a Bill was introduced, which went through all its stages in seven days, unlike the

present Measure, retrospectively depriving all those claimants of their claims without any compensation. Those claimants were in the same position as the Burmah Oil Company today, namely, that a point of law at issue, a major point of law, had been decided in their favour and they had actions pending on which judgments had not yet been determined by the courts. 
It may be that a distinction to be drawn between those cases and this is that they were not a claim against the Crown, but I remind the House in that case of the provisions of Section 39 of the Finance Act, 1960, which also was passed in consequence of a decision of the House of Lords, in the case of Whitworth Park Colliery Co. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. That case held that the Revenue had wrongly deducted tax at source from certain interim payments made by the Minister of Power under the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. At the time of the Finance Bill, there were six cases pending in which writs had been issued claiming repayment of the sums deducted. 
Again, the position was similar. The legal point had been decided in the claimants' favour, but they had not yet obtained judgment. Section 39 operated retrospectively to defeat those claims, and there was a debate raised in the House, by the right hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), on the desirability of making it retrospective. The retrospection was defended by the learned Attorney-General of the day in these words:
There is nothing unusual or wrong, in my submission, in making the law accord"—
in the context, it meant accord retro-spectively—
with what everyone has for years thought it to be and in accordance with which people have acted without the slightest complaint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1960; Vol. 624, c. 814.]
That is one of our justifications for making the provisions of this Bill retrospective. We have taken a firm view of this matter, as did the previous Administration. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral has accepted responsibility for the sending of a letter warning the Company that, in the circumstances which have now materialised, a Bill of Indemnity would be introduced.


All I can say to him is that we at least have the courage of his convictions.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I must confess that I was bitterly disappointed both by the tone and the form of the reply of the Financial Secretary. Without detaining the House too long, I hope, at this hour, it is my duty to argue, and, I believe, to point out, that the one hon. Member who has established beyond doubt the case for the Clause, not as a compromise but on its merits, is the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. 
I do not want to pursue now the question of negotiations. It may well be that the parties are too far apart. We do not know. We have not been told. Obviously, we would not wish to deter any negotiations. But, on the assumption that negotiation for one reason or another is impossible, what the Financial Secretary has succeeded in doing beyond doubt is to establish that the parties ought to be allowed to go on litigating their rights right up to judgment. That is the logical conclusion of his argument, and the only logical conclusion. 
It is because we on this side of the House take that view fundamentally that we think we are entitled to press the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the Clause. The one hon. Member who is not entitled, in my submission, to describe that attitude which I certainly sincerely hold as a compromise is the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, because it was he—however he seeks now to deny it—who in Committee said:
If only 6d. were involved nobody would trouble to legislate about the matter.

Mr. MaeDermot: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that if the claim had been for only 6d. the letter would have been written?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hogg: I will answer if I am given the chance. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get out of it that way, because the whole purpose of his argument and the whole effect of it was that if the sum involved were small the principle of retrospection is so odious that the Bill would both be unnecessary and undesirable.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read my speech in Committee.

If he has, perhaps he would be good enough to quote the passage he is referring to in which I said that was my argument.

Mr. Hogg: Certainly. I will read the whole passage as I have been invited to. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must contain himself. I did not interrupt him during his very long, tortuous and unconvincing argument. He has asked me to quote his speech. I am proposing to do so if he will allow me. He said:
The hon. Member then criticised my argument on the basis of the vast sums that are involved. This is an easy argument to deploy—that it does not matter whether it is a question of dealing with a sum of 6d. or £100 million since the question is one of principle—and, frankly, I think that his argument was unreal and unrealistic. When we are concerned with large sums of money we have a responsibility as the Government and Parliament have a responsibility as legis-lators and as those responsible above all, for the control of public expenditure. We must, therefore, balance up the matter and decide whether it is right to allow compensation to be paid on what would be a large scale which would single out these claimants for a particular and high level of compensation which nobody else who suffered war damage recovered.
If only 6d. were involved nobody would trouble to legislate about the matter…It is only because there are substantial sums involved that the matter comes before the House of Commons. I make no bones about that and it is not a matter about which one need give any apology."—[OFFiciAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd February, 1965; c. 27.]
In the light of that explicit passage, how can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the whole nub of his argument in that passage was not that the crux of the matter might turn on the amount to which the plaintiffs in the action were ultimately entitled? The conclusion to draw from that is that, at any rate in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is a crucial matter to know, before introducing the principle of retrospection, which he conceded to be odious, how much money is involved.
Of course, it is true that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) does not accept that, and that a number of my hon. Friends do not accept that. They say that this is a matter of principle. I am bound to say that I have never quite taken that view, and I say so quite frankly, but the one conclusion to draw from the view which the hon.


and learned Gentleman pressed upon the Committee was that one must first find out, before introducing this odious principle into legislation, what the size of the claim is. On his argument this evening, that is precisely what cannot be done until the litigation is concluded.

Mr. Richard: Mr. Richard rose—

Mr. Hogg: I have not yet concluded my point, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who described the new Clause as a shabby compromise, will allow me in the course of making that point to reply to the arguments which he presented.
As a matter of fact, the judgment of the House of Lords, as the Financial Secretary precisely said, did not decide either liability or quantum, and in this matter there are still four substantial questions before the courts which should be determined before the ultimate liability or the quantum is determined. The first is that it is not yet established whether Burmese or Scottish law applies, and, if Burmese law should apply, whether it gives any right of action at all. That appears in the first paragraph of Lord Reid's judgment.
It has yet to be established—and this appears in the same paragraph—whether the action is not barred altogether by the effect of the Defence of Burma Act, 1940, and the rules made under it, because, if it is, the action will fail altogether. It may well turn out that the true measure of damage will turn on what a prudent purchaser would have given for the wells at the time of the Japanese advance, and that might very well be a very small sum indeed, and that was the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
I do not want to embarrass him in his efforts to escape from the language he used about rehabilitation and compensation, but for the point of this argument that is irrelevant, because he himself said that, whether it be rehabilitation or compensation, the £4,750,000, if that is the right sum, which was paid was for rehabilitation and as rehabilitation would have to be, or might be, taken into account as a matter of law before giving any compensation to the plaintiffs in this action. The result is that, although they could in principle recover a sum, say, of £3

million, or £500,000, on the true measure of the damage, they would still not get a penny on this litigation if it amounted to less than £4,750,000, on the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, which is that this is open to litigation, and that it is open to litigation appears plainly from the judgment.
11.15 p.m.
The result of that is a decision to say whether the plaintiff company is entitled to a penny or not. The Financial Secretary's argument, after the introduction of this odious principle about what would happen if the sum were sixpence, is that legislation must be brought in at this time. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich is not right in any way at all to describe this Amendment as a shabby compromise when that appears to be the only logical conclusion to be deduced from the Financial Secretary's argument.

Mr. MacDermot: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman argue that the proper time for the introduction of the Bill is after the courts have awarded compensation which the Government do not think it proper to be paid?

Mr. Hogg: We have made it quite clear that that can be the subject of an affirmative Resolution if we know what is the argument of the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Richard: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what are the arguments which should prevail upon the House at the time when such a Resolution comes before it? Let us suppose that the damages were assessed at about £60 million. What advice would he then give to the House?

Mr. Hogg: I say that the House could not come to a conclusion on this issue of retrospection on the very argument—the only argument—which he puts forward. It might very well be that the two sides of the House would differ in its opinion when that time came, but it is the sheerest hypocrisy for the hon. and learned Gentleman to present to the House as a basic argument that the question of retrospection, which he admits is , being applied, can apply only if the sums involved are large and, at the same time, then to say "We do not know if the sums are nothing or millions" while also asking for the Clause to be rejected, a Clause, I would remind the House, which


has as its object postponement of the operation of this Bill until the House has had time to consider his own argument.

Mr. Richard: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how much money was in the minds of himself and his colleagues on 13th June, 1962, when they took the decision to introduce retrospective legislation?

Mr. Hogg: I am not trying to run away from my political responsibility as a member of the Cabinet which authorised that letter. I can also say that the Department of Education and Science had no particular sums in mind; and I further say that I was ready to believe that the size of this claim was large. There were other clams, and the point I was intending to say, since I have been asked specifically, was that at the time I thought the sums involved were very large.
I have since then read the judgments of the House of Lords and think that they are likely to be relatively small or nonexistent.

Mr. MacDermot: The House of Lords judgment was delivered in April, 1964, and the Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a member had three months during which it could have studied the judgments and to decide whether or not it was right to bring forward legislation. We now understand that they decided to bring forward legislation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman shared responsibility for the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. We decided upon the drafting of a Bill, and the result of that was this Bill. That is what we did, and we did not decide to introduce the Bill which is before the House tonight. I would remind the Financial Secretary that what we did was to give instructions for a Bill to be drafted, and what resulted was this Bill. That is quite different. We did not decide to introduce this Bill. No Government decision had been taken. Although it is true, no doubt, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was then pursuing with great skill his lucrative profession at the Bar, read those judgments with great care at the time, I did not.
The moment that I read the House of Lords judgments, however, I came to the same conclusion that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought logically to come to as a result of the argument, which he has presented to the House tonight, that there is at least a sufficient doubt as to whether the liability exists at all, or whether the quantum of damages is nil or millions, to entitle this House to say that we must know how the matter stands at law before we introduce the odious principle of retrospection. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 149.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[11.20 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chataway, Christopher
Grant, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Griffiths, Eldon(Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Cole, Norman
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Cordle, John
Garden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, F. V.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bell, Ronald
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hawkins, Paul


Bessell, Peter
Dean, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Higgins, Terence L.


Biggas-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Farr, John
Hooson, H. E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fell, Anthony
Hordern, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Foster, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian(Norfolk, Central)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson Smith, G.


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)




Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Summers, Sir Spencer


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Percival, Ian
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lubbock, Eric
Pitt, Dame Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Maokle, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


McMaster, Stanley
pym, Francis
Webster, David


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mathew, Robert
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Whitelaw, William


Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.
Sharpies, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George
Wylie, N. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswlcx>
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stainton, Keith



Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, W. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcotm
Mr. McLaren and Mr. More.


Murton, Oscar
Studholme, Sir Henry





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ginsburg, David
Norwood, Christopher


Alldritt, W. H.
Gregory, Arnold
Oakes, Gordon


Allen, scholefleld (Crewe)
Grey, Charies
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William
Hannan, William
Perry, Ernest G.


Beaney Alan
Harper, Joseph
Popplewell, Ernest


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bisnop E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Richard, Ivor


Blackburn, F.
Heffer,Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman H.
Holman, Percy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boston, T. G
Horner, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. william


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sheldon, Robert

Boyden, Jarnes
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Short, Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howle. W.
silkin, John (Deptford)


Brown, Hugn D. (Glasgow, Provan)
James
silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditoh &amp; Fbury)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Slater Joseph(Sedgefleld)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


carter-Jones, Lewls
Janner,Sir Barnett
Snow, Julian


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Solomons, Henry


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crosiand, Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'Worth, Central)
Summerskill, Dr.Shirley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Tinn, James


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis Ron(Carlisle)
Tuck, Raphael


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dodds, Norman
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Wallace, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacDermot, Niall
Warbey, William


Dunn, James A.
Mclnnes, James
Watkins, Tudor


Dunnett, Jack
MacMillan, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilkins, W. A.


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William(Coventry, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moiloy, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)



Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Neal, Harold
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. McCam.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 135.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Gregory, Arnold
Oakes, Cordon


Alldritt, W. H.
Grey, Charles
Ogden, Eric


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William(Woolwich, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Perry, ErnestG.


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Popplewell, Ernest


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Richard, Ivor


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt.Hn.Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Holman, Percy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boston, T. G.
Horner, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sheldon, Robert


Boyden, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Short, Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Short, Mrs.Rence(W'hampton,N.E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, James
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffo)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snow, Julian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Solomons, Henry


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Crosland, Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Symonds, J. B.


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Dell, Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Duffy, A. E, P.
MacColl, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


Dunnett, Jack
Mclnnes, James
Warbey, William


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Watkins, Tudor


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Ensor, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan (Swansca, W.)


Fitch, Alan (wigan)
Manuel, Archie
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Molloy, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charies (Openshaw)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Mr. McCann and Mr. Howie.


Gourlay, Harry
Norwood, Christopher





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Garlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chataway, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Allason, James (HemelHempstead)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Astor, John
Cole, Norman
Grimond, Rt .Hn. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Haroid


Baker, W. H. K.
Cordle, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, F. V.
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)


Bell, Ronald
Curran, Charles
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bessell, Peter
Dean, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Blaker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Hooson, H. E.


Bossom, Hn.Clive
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Boyd-Carpentor, Rt. Hn. J.
Foster, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson Smith, G.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Buck, Antony
Gower, Raymond
Jopling, Michael




King, Eveiyn (Dorset, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lambton, Viscount
Page, R.Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


Longden, Gilbert
Peyton, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lubbock, Eric
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Pitt, Dame Edith
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Pounder, Rafton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Pym, Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Mathew, Robert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Webster, David


Maude, Angus
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Whitelaw, William


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sharpies, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wylle, N. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith



Morgan, W. G.
Stodart, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Mr. McLaren and Mr. More.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.


ADJOURNMENT


Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Fitch.]


Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.